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)
Where are these things? I'm sure tons of
You must have quite a few clients willing to pay you
for your "services".
Otherwise, every friend and coworker I have can be a spammer.
Each one of these persons have either a DSL or Cable modem
connection, and most are proficient with computers.
What they (my friends) lack are people willing to pay them for
sending out spam (oh, yeah, another thing working aginst their
success as spammers is morality).
To fight spam and spammers successfully, i think, we must
fight the source and not the messanger (= spammer). That
is finding out who is actually paying for the spam being sent
out and "pound" on them.
I've been fighting spam for several years now. I use RBLs
and ORDBs and even have blacklisted close to 14000 IP
addresses in addition to using spam-filters. But the spam
keeps coming in.
--sidster
Play lotto? Try http://www.alottofun.com/
If mortgage companies pay spammers $5 for every referral then why can't we spam them back?
Simply create ten million or so "honeypot" email addresses, and have an automated system have them all request information on the mortgage deal.
Once the mortgage company is on the hook for $50 million, they will think again before going to a spam outfit.
This will knock out the mortgage and credit card spams, but won't make a dent in the porn or Viagra spams, as those actually require an order.
When I was in high school, I had an AOL account. I knew there were other ways to get online, but I actually liked AOL. There actually was "value added" AOL content at the time, and among those were the chatrooms. I used them, and the forums, a good bit. I later on learned that creating a user profile had become a bad idea, because that put you in the Member Directory, which spambots used to get addresses. Pity, because the directory was a good thing at first. The chat rooms were too. You had to dig around to find good ones, but they were there. Now, because of people like you wanting to make a buck by annoying people by the millions, an AOL user can't go into a publicly listed room or even a private one with a non-random title, without instantly becoming a spam target.
It's been a long time since I used the account regularly, but I still have that account. I use it when I'm out of town, because no matter where you are, you'll usually find an access number. Not for email though. Never for email. Sometimes I'll go into my inbox though to show people what eight years' worth of abuse from people like you has done to it...
I log in, and the box is full. Every time. I start my demonstration by deleting about twenty or thirty emails, and then we watch. After a minute, I refresh it. One or two more emails. Another minute, same thing. Wait five minutes and there are at least ten new messages. Wait half an hour, and the box is full again.
Thanks, asshole.
But I do admire your courage in posting non-AC that you used to do this. And I thank you for giving me an opportinuty to actually speak to one of you. I wish your email address wasn't hidden, but I do see a URL. In glancing at your page I don't see an email address, but I do see a form on your page for sending messages to your cell phone.
Fortunately, I don't care enough about it to do anything with that, but I did want to point that little detail out for every one of the good folks on Slashdot to see...
Okay, the above poster is just being stupid.
I thought the goal was to give spammers incentive, whether negative or positive, to stop spamming.
How is abusing someone who gave up spamming going to help?
The message you are saying is:
"Once you've spammed, you're screwed. Doesn't matter if you stop or change."
That is plain stupid and the wrong attitude to take. If someone stops spamming, give them the pat on the shoulder and leave them alone. Move onto the next spammer. Why continue to harass someone who has gone legit?
If you abuse people because they spam and you abuse them if they stop, then you are basically telling them and anyone else that hey, once you have started to spam, there is no reason to stop.
I for one would like to see the spamming stop.
Winged Power Photography
I'm not forgetting that... But you have to remember it's a sales pitch. The more distorted and mangled the message looks, more people will just completely ignore it. Regardless of whether a message was spam or not, I would not take seriously any message that was sent to me in, essentially, SMS-speak. I certainly wouldn't refinance my home or accept medical advice from an organization that wrote me in that fashion.
Second, and more importantly, the majority of people do not wage a 24 hour war against spam and run a Bayesian spam filter. They just put up with it.
For now, that is true. But as time progresses more and more companies and ISPs will offer filters (perhaps Bayesian, others, or both) to their customers--perhaps defaulting it to "on." I wouldn't count on typical users making an effort to avoid spam, but I would expect more and more comapnies and ISP to do so.
If it was purely Bayesian filter vs spammer, spammer would win hands down.
I disagree, and I wonder if you have done much investigating with Bayesian? I've been working on it for the last 7 months and, believe me, Bayesian is surprisingly effective despite its simplicity. Messages I thought it wouldn't catch ARE caught with no special logic whatsoever.
Three things I would mention and which I advocate, especially as spammers try to outwit Bayesian.
1. Bayesian WILL catch their messages unless they munge their messages, which we must assume they will. They already do and, presumably, they'll do it more in the future. This is simple to address. Once your Bayesian corpus gets sufficiently large the expectation is that a typical valid email will not add a significant number of previously-unseen tokens to the corpus. If you have a corpus of thousands of messages and receive a new message of which 40% (for example) are new tokens, you may want to assume that's a spammer munging because a real mail is not going to have that many "new" tokens.
2. Even if you don't assign a cut-off point as in #1, you just make "characteristics" out of the number of new tokens. For example, if you have a message that contains 50-60% new tokens, that itself becomes a new Bayesian token. Perhaps, over time, Bayesian will find that "messages with 50-60% new tokens have an 80% chance of being spam." So the fact that they munge becomes a damning factor even if the computer can't identify the actual munging.
3. You add new characteristics as in #2. Perhaps another characteristic is "Messages that contain no body except for a URL." Perhaps 85% of those messages are spam, and Bayesian can count that as a damning characteristic. Or, perhaps, messages where over 50% of the body are devoted to URLs have a 90% chance of being spam. All these add new "characteristics" that can be used to calculate a spam probability for Bayesian.
So, the point is, Bayesian itself is very, very capable of solving the spam problem. I'm not saying that we write a Bayesian filter today and it never has to evolve. But now when spammers implement new countermeasures, we just have Bayesian do analysis that looks for those countermeasures and, when found, counts them as another characteristic. The algorithm remains untouched, but we have a growing number of characteristics that Bayesian is scoring--not just tokens (words) in the message, but characteristics OF the message.
Believe me, 7 months of research and development on this has convinced me that Bayesian is going to be the headache to end all headaches for spammers. Will it catch 100% of spam? No (more like 99.5%, actually |grin|). But will it catch enough so that the typical user isn't bothered by spam and to further reduce the response rate of spam to reduce the incentive to send it? Yes, it will.
And regardless of whether or not the w