Slashdot Mirror
How to Become A Spammer
permeablepdx points to this story in The Oregonian about
how to become a spammer. Summary: "Local Oregon boy makes big bucks after learning from the Spam masters."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Find a product you want to sell or a scam you want to run, find some exploitable mail servers and find a list of email addresses. Then just run a mass emailing program. What's the big deal?
"The idea is it's just like a commercial," Shiels said. "You don't just send it to one address once. You send it to one address five or six times. Do commercials only come on once? You get the same crap in your e-mail more than once. You have to bombard the person."
And they wonder why they get death threats.
Just what we need! To teach more people this valuable trade.... But really, it won't be worth it. In a few years, so many people will be into it that the companies will have the upper hand on who to hire to get the message out........ and unless you have lists of email addresses in the hundreds of millions it won't be worth it. Besides, your customers will be limited to porn or those sleazy as-seen-on-TV type products. I suggest reading some advertising books, since that is the trade, and finding a more novel way to apply it to the net if you want to make real money.
> Well first I PAY to have an Internet connection, I do not however, pay for the mail that gets sent to me - thats the mailers responsibility. Also it seems a bit more personal being intruded upon in your own home, than having something sitting in your physical mailbox outside on the step, or the entryway to your building. Personally I think snail mail is far more wasteful in terms of actual resources, I just don't directly pay for it and I don't get as much of it and I can recycle it, but the time I spend sifting through hundreds of ridiculous spam emails a day impacts me more directly.
There you have it. I wonder if there is a way of applying this cost to every spammer.
Sure its ok to post the source to DeCSS but now all of a sudden you don't like the SPAMMER-HOWTO? Thats odd I thought you didn't have a problem with it just being information and all.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
If he feels that this stuff is so legitimate, why is he using software that abuses open relays and proxies, and forges mail headers, instead of publishing the real address he is sending his spew from? Hmmm?
It's forgery, plain and simple, and there are laws that deal with it. Prosecute the fsckers on it already!!!
Such as watching DVD movies on operating systems with no DVD playing software. Where as spamming is always a pain in the butt.
Before DeCSS you would not be able to watch a DVD on Linux. Before spamming it was possible to let kids use email with no fears of them seeing obscene things, you can't now. Which is the biggest menace, I'll let you decide.
He claims he abides by the laws, and removes people when requested. And refused porn customers...
Also rather intelligent and well spoken.
While his previous 'career' is absolute scum, at least he took it seriously, as a legitimate business..
I'm impressed, too bad not most of the rest don't have his level of 'morality', and 'responsibility'.
As much as we all hate it, ( I know I do, both at home and due to my position at work ) as long as its legal, it will continue to be a large part of net-life.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Maybe, but really i believe these guys about as much as those guys on late night tv with the yacht selling real estate advice.
If Sheils is really smart he is probably setting himself up so he can sell software/books to wannabe spammers. He can include articles like this and tell people "Work from home, make money like me."
One word: Asshole.
If they make you pay, you'd actually have to give them money in an attempt to bother them. Then, when you try to bother them, they just remove you account and keep your money.
If you're implying some denial of service attack, I don't really think you're any better than they are.
i got no problems with d0sing spammers/pornographers :P let em rot in hell
PZ
My mom never believed where I was getting the money and thought I was selling drugs :
At least drug users voluntarily buy the drugs from the dealers.
Note that he says he DOESN'T SPAM ANYMORE. He's not likely to do it again. Let it go. Find somebody who is currently spamming, and go after them.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Note that he didn't necessarily make $1000 a week from people buying the products he advertised. He made $1000 a week from companies who paid him to advertise their stuff. Big difference! He mentioned that mortgage companies would pay him for anyone who requested more informtation, even if that person never actually got the mortgage.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
I do not find your moral equivalence between an unprovoked attack on innocent bystanders (what the spammers are doing) and a retaliation/deterrent attack on perps (what a DoS on a spammer-support site would be) to be at all convincing.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Many of the posters seem to be unaware that bulk mail sent by the Post Office actually subsidizes the cost of regular First Class mail. Hence, for all its drawbacks, it does provide legitimate benefits - unlike spam, whose costs are passed on to users and service providers.
What's so great about the article? The reason this particular spammer quit!
He quit because of hostile, harassing emails from the angry public! They work! Every email you've sent telling a spammer that they're a worthless turd of a human being had some miniscule effect!
Even now, the guy admits no moral qualms about his former job. He's still a thoughtless punk who sees nothing wrong with the practice, and I'd still like to punch him in the nose. But he QUIT, because we made his life miserable in return.
The lesson: keep giving 'em hell. It's not just gratifying, it sometimes works.
This guy basically shared his story for a publicity plug for his defibralator Web site (see the last paragraph in the story). This would be synonymous to an ex-Enron exec who joined up with PepsiCola after the Enron fallout sharing his story of deceipt only to start off with saying, "Before I begin, let's all enjoy a Pepsi. Mmmmmm, Pepsi tastes so good and its stock price is very reasonable - buy now!"
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
First rule -- spammers lie. And there are a bunch of inconsistancies in the article that make me wonder.
I'd want to take a look at his books, and his bank account. Get a list of his clients, and see how much stuff they're actually selling. "Spam on commission" sounds seriously odd.
Also keep in mind that $1000/week is $50,000/year -- not all that impressive.
Welcome to the Turing Tarpit, where everything is possible but nothing interesting is easy.
Postal spam is worse. I've gotten to the point that, whenever I move, I *don't* fill out a change of address card because I'm sick of the fliers following me everywhere I go. I usually get 2 or 3 legitimate items of postal mail a week, versus dozens of bulk-mail ads. I'd simply not check my mailbox (which involves a 6-minute hike to the front of the apartment complex and back) but not checking it for more than a couple days causes my box to be crammed full. So, should I be more annoyed with: A)E-Spam, which takes me a whole 5 seconds to filter every time I check my e-mail, and is almost certainly mixed in with legitimate e-mails or B)A daily 6-minute hike which generally has the sole purpose of emptying my mailbox to physically make room for more bulk mail, with little chance of any practical yeild. See my\his point? (and no comments about needing the exercise, I quite enjoy walking - when it's by my choice out of no other obligation)
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
1. Mugging them on the street (theft of service).
2. "Brrowing" their cars without permission to rob a bank even though they return them later, so what, difference does it make? (using someone elses mail server to relay spam).
3. Sending threats to politicians using your address as the return address (using some innocent person's email address as the return address for bounced spam).
4. Handing out pornographic magazines to everyone that walks by--10 meters away from an elementary school (sending porn spam when you have no clue whether or not the recepient is even an adult).
The NERVE of some of us getting upset about such silly things.
He claims to have been a cop. And then he claims to have followed the laws regarding spam. Despite his going around those laws and using relays in other countries.
Not to mention I am sure he was in violation of his ISP's Terms of Service.
And he keeps portraying those who oppose his spamming as "living in basements".
What's with that? Doesn't he feel secure enough in his previous profession? Why does he have to keep making such claims about people who oppose his previous profession?
Also, why does he phrase it as "a war" and having to "bombard" people?
No, this isn't like a commercial on television. If I'm not watching that show, I don't get the commercials.
Ive seen a rehash in this thread of several sensible (and not so sensible) ideas regarding reducing spam, and making life tougher for spammers. One idea this article gave me, however, that i havent seen discussed much, involves these message boards that were alluded to in the article.
A digital social network (in the form of bullitain boards, etc) through which people can trade information about addresses, software, and spamming methods should be a trivial thing for a large digitally sophisticated crowd (ie slashdot) to find and then attack, either by trolling/flooding, or more outright destructive means.
This dosent address the actual hardware involved in sending and receiving spam, but rather constitutes a multi-front assault against a subculture. Maybe it wont stop all spam, but it would make it harder for people to get into the spam business, by either exposing this social infrastructure and diluting it, or disabling it violently by disrupting the virtual real-estate it resides in.
He's been involved in the spamming business for 6 months
He spent the first 5 months researching and one month of spamming
He spent $10.000 on spam-software
He claims he made $1000 a week.
4 weeks times $1000=$4000 income.
$4000 income minus $10.000 is -$6000. So, the guy loses $6000 on spamming.
Film at eleven...
There will always be people willing to do anything for money, and people wanting spam sent. There will always be international borders to hide behind.
The best way I can see to fix the current spam problem is to use tarpits like spamd. My OpenBSD mail system will tarpit any incoming SMTP connection on the spews list, and any connection from a netblock that I don't like the look of.
Tarpits make sending spam a very slow process, a few more of these would make spamming too expensive to be worth the effort.
Spammers - My email is spamme@our-police.co.uk
Bulk unsolicited email is the exact opposite. It is an unnegotiated public bad- neither you nor your ISP negotiates that 'contract' with the spammers that makes all email / ISP services much more expensive.
I think I should cross that company off my list of potential providers for Defibrillators and AEDs.
He might be reformed, or he might not... but he clearly has not paid ANY of his debt to society, and his ethics are in question.
People tend to surround themselves with people of a similar stripe and philosophy (the old birds-of-a-feather argument). Just the presence of that questionable past makes me not want to do business with the company.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Regardless of anyone's single belief, SPAM is still not a felony. To make the analogy: Someone spams me today and tomorrow it becomes a federal offense punishable by law. He is subject to the law as it was writtn YESTERDAY. Now, if I killed someone 10 years ago...I'm still going to punished; under the law written 10 years ago. Either way, the laws today should NOT reflect those of 10 years ago, unless an aspiring lawyer wants to set precedent.
[SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
Cops enforce laws - which have nothing to do with right or wrong, and are encouraged to lie to you in the process. Don't believe me? Ask anyone who has been arrested, or their lawyers.
Cops are just gang enforcers - that they have the backing of the "law" is a nice moral justification they can use for themselves - but they'll happily enforce laws that they admit are wrong.
Defeating naive bayesian filtering is easy: weight the message
with N random words from a dictionary file, where N is calculated
to be sufficiently large that it will surely contain at least half
as many squeaky clean words as the number of "most interesting"
tokens the filter considers. Further note that these words do
not have to get in the way of the message: they can be stuck
anyplace the filter will see them, even if the user will probably
not see them there. (Think: X-Die-Filter-Die headers, sig blocks,
MIME separators, HTML comments, to the right of a hundred spaces,
and so on and so forth.)
Of course, we can make bayesian filters less naive by having them
consider context of tokens, but that consumes more system resources,
and then the spammers can drag out the Markov chains. And we know
there are miscreants who know how to write Markov chain generators,
because hipcrime has been using them for years to get past the
net.admin.net-abuse.* robocancel-moderation and pull assorted
maladjusted and juvenile stunts. And detecting Markov chains is
probably AI complete, or at least significantly difficult.
Regardless of what the spammers do, bayesian filters (if made less
naive than the current ones) can *probably* continue to work when
trained on a large bulk of well-sorted mail from a single user's
account and used to sort that same user's mail, but I don't think
they will ever be a hassle-free drop-in solution for the masses.
Without good data on the nature of a specific user's mail (i.e.,
data the spammers (hopefully) don't have), they're too easy to
defeat. Markov chains are not even especially new technology, and
while the idea is clever, much more advanced autogeneration is
possible... *generating* human language text is *way* easier
than parsing it, which makes the filtering game ultimately a
losing battle for mail clients -- unless intelligent user input
(selection) goes into training the filter for *each* person's mail,
which gives you a leg up on the spammer who doesn't have your data.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
As much as I hate spam, I disagree.
The article shows various interesting things, one of them being that spammers are hated like beelzebub himself. If that does not prevent one from starting it, what does?
I must admit I was tempted about the idea of "taking revenge" on a spammer, but no. Stop spamming and repent, that is good enough for me.
Alex
P.S.: Then again... he raked in $4.000/mo. Maybe he should donate some of that money to spamhaus.org
Absinthe makes the heart grow fonder