Slashdot Mirror
Spamfighters Get A Hold Of Spammers' Incoming Mail
Karin Spaink writes "On July 3 2003, cyberangels.nl was obtained by Spamvrij.nl, a Dutch foundation fighting spam. Previously,
the domain was owned by the infamous Cyberangels, who are majorly involved in spamming. Cyberangels felt forced to drop the domain when the ground under their feet got too hot after BBC journalist Andrew Bomford connected Dutch ISP Megaprovider to Cyberangels.
Since the MX-records for cyberangels.nl now point to spamvrij.nl too, they get all Cyberangels' incoming mail: bounces, spam complaints and what have you. Have a peek: what kind of mail does a major spammer receive in the course of three days? By now, they have a
very precise answer: 6305 mails. Spamvrij.nl published an analysis of those mails on its site."
that they are getting many eCards of sympathy from other spammers? In that business, I would be surprised if they didn't try to sabotage each other now and then.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
These guys are entitled to wear the "I read your email" tshirts.
Or at least immoral? I don't think "the end justifies the means" is really a valid defense, especially as there's no "end" in this case. They are just reading someone else's email. And "White hat hacking" doesn't apply either, as that refers to people who are asked to break in to a computer to test it, not vigilantes like our own Fyodor, who use their skills to merely harass people that annoy them.
...what kind of mail does a major spammer receive in the course of three days? By now, we have a very precise answer: 6305 mails.
They are wrong. Look in the page linked:
Introduction: 6305 mails in (basically) one day
"...a generation of kids has grown up thinking Trance is the shittiest music since country and western." - Paul van Dyk
It's all about a young guy called Martijn Bevelander, there is alot of press now here in Holland because the net is closing around him. Hope he gets banned from the Dutch Internet provider group and his company stops.
Latest news (in Dutch):
http://www.webwereld.nl/nieuws/15564.phtml
"Introduction: 6305 mails in (basically) one day
;-)
We received 5880 bounces and forwards
We received 12 spams for @cyberangels
We received 40 attempts to annoy Cyberangels
We received 371 complaints about Cyberangels
We received 2 business mails"
In other words, they received 12 spams and 413 legitimate emails (not counting the bounces). That can't be right; everyone knows that most inboxes have a ratio of spam/non spam that is more like 413:12 rather than 12:413. Liars!
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
I'll be that about 90% of the email is some variation of:
IF I EVER MEET YOU I WILL KICK YOUR ASS
Is how few emails were for business. I assume this category would include responses to spam. Maybe I do not understand the story, and the CyberAngels people were merely responsible for sending the spam (for other people), and if anyone responded to the offers in the mails it would go to an non-CyberAngels address. Or possibly redirected to a website, where they could make a purchase. Yeah, as I type out my thoughts, the reason for the dearth of business emails becomes clearer.
.0003%, and insanely high (compared with other forms of direct marketing), like 5%. People can argue for one side or another, but I need more evidence than conjecture to begin to understand the problem. If the response rate is already very low, then relatively simple technological solutions would probably suffice to drive them low enough to make spam unprofitable. If the response rate is high, it is going to take a lot of effort to fix this problem, possibly involving a redesign of the email system.
I had hoped for some accurate stats on the actual response rates to spam. I have heard rumors flying around that they are insanely low, like
Glad to see these spammers were shut down, but we need more insights into the way they operate in order to shut them all down.
They've done a nice job of analyzing the residual influx of email, while not airing all the dirty laundry. They didn't post a complete session log, so there's no information that may get folks upset. The last business email listed as "1 other" is probably sensitive, and shouldn't be posted on the web (though sending them a "we know who you are" message may make them think twice about using spam in the future.)
Spammers intressts me, I hate them. But I do wounder how much the company buying the spamming service actualy to earn in the end. For ones I contacted a company about there wounderful product, and said I was intressed in buying some. My idea was to get hold of a real life person, to send my "I live in a country where its illegal to spam people, so you guys broken the law!".. But ofcourse I didnt mention that on "intressed in your products" mail I sent them (on there official sales email from there site).. Now whats realy make me confused is that they never wrote anything back.. So..
1. Spam me
2. Ignore me if I want to buy there product
3. ???
4. Profit!
"2 attempts to subscribe ba@cyberangels to a gay magazine;"
Yep, it seems that at least two people on the Net know how to fight back, the old "hey, let's sign up the ripe-contact email address for gay porn magazines" routine. Gets 'em every time.
IGB: More fun than eating oatmeal!
The sheer volume of messages must mean that most spammers are out for only one thing: credit card information. And the best way to get those is to run some scripts to strip out the necessary information. I cannot believe that they can take the time to actually parse out the information by hand, figure out which non-existent product they are selling, and sell anything. 6,000 per day would be 8 seconds per message in a 12-hour day, more or less. I have heard that 40-60 percent of spammers never ship any product, just take a bite out of your credit card and move on. This goes a long way toward confirming that suspicion.
I'm pretty happy about that. According to an article in The Register, One of the board members of spamvrij.nl is Karin Spaink, very likely the same Karin Spaink who has been involved in the battle against $cientology.
Taking on spammers nd $cientologists. Damn. She's got guts.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Love this part of the analysis:
Both ba@cyberangels and ripe-contact@cyberangels recieved some spam:
1. Mr. RASHEED BELLO sent ba@ six Nigerian scams;
2. @yahoo.com.cn spammed four times with something rather illegible;
3. Mr. Ken Titoh was hoping to assist Mr. ERASHEED BELLO;
4. Somebody believed that a Cyberangels' dick was too small
I have a question. What occurs to credit cards and payments that scammers receive from their customers?
Spammers are by no means stupid. Above all things they MUST get their money, otherwise none of this is worth doing.
So if the scammers are getting their money, the credit card companies pay them. If the credit card companies pay them...
[1] We have a breach of trust between the credit card companies and the customers. CC companies are not doing their due diligence in brokering payments for product/services. CC companies are issueing clearance of charges to unscrupulous people. We are entrusting them with our financials (whether we choose to "fraud-notify" them or not). They have all the information, both the consumers and the scammers.
[2] The customers complain they never got their product. Report fraud. The credit card companies remove the charge, investigate it or not. This increases cost/risk for the CC companies. Higher interest rates? More cooking the books?
Why is nobody investigating the money side (IMHO the lifeblood of this business) of this problem? As long as we concentrate on the technology, we'll always be distracted from the real solution. It's all about the money in the end.
Anonimity
+ Privacy, Sharing, Voice
- Scams, Theft, Hit/Run
We asked for it.
"Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp
Actually, we had one already - which is analysed at http://www.cyberangels.nl/evidence/mailmartijn.htm l, and only now two news mails arrived. Check the mail analysis page for updates.
I write, therefore I am:
http://www.spaink.net/