Slashdot Mirror
In Pursuit Of A Spammer
Kyle writes "Over at DSL Reports, We are currently pursuing a spammer from the West Palm Beach, Florida area. This wouldn't normally be news, but we think Slashdot readers may be interested in just how successful we have been. What's more interesting is that the spammer appears to be posting in the thread."
If I bring you back his ears?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
It turns out, after I caught a spammer, I wasn't allowed to kill him. Apparently, that's not classified as justifiable homicide. You know how silly I feel now?
"We are currently pursuing a spammer from the West Palm Beach, Florida area."
Will be see this on Fox?
And I've said it before, you're free to do what you wish so long as it doesn't impact on me or my freedoms.
Spam costs me money. Every time I open an email I don't want, every time I have to update my anti-spam software (well, that's free but that's besides the point) it costs me time and money and I object. It's fine if I've signed up for a newsletter or advertising (yes, I've done that - Think Geek sends me notification of stuff even though I'm a dirty foreigner and can't buy any of it) but when I haven't it's costing me. Where can I send the invoice? To you?
I am a leaf on the wind
They're using my bandwidth and my resources with my approval. In most cases, they're also using someone's server without their approval and forging various information. If they were honest about who they were, and what they were selling, I'd have a lot less of a problem with it. Instead, they try to use subjects and senders to trick you into reading it and wasting your time.
Well in some countries, spamming is clearly forbidden.
Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
Pursuit of fleeing vehicles is much more common in LA, but the West Palm Beach folks are very fond of pursuing rental trucks full of votes to be recounted. So now they are just chasing a truck load of canned pork, doesn't really surprise me much.
We've found a spammer, may we burn him?
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
t's their right to send it and it's your right to block it.
Sorry, that theory fails when fraud comes into the equation. Rule #1: Spammers LIE.
Lying, in this context (trying to steal your service), is fraud.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Who has the right to send a scam to people? I don't think scams are protected under the first amendment and I don't think advertsing should be either. Certainly the framers never considered advertising as political dissent in need of protection. So why do you?
he has an email newsletter. Let's all sign up!
Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
... who's got a mental picture involving a Benny Hill style chase sequence?
Does junk mail sent to your work or residential address through the standard postal service fall under this as well?
I receive more then my fair share of junk through the USPS, and I certainly can't put a strainer over my mailbox to filter any out.
How is this different?
This person spammed a forum which is wrong, but what do they really expect to happen this company? Do they want their domain revoked, a reprimand, a fine? Do they have proof that they spam on a massive scale or send massive bulk e-mails. It's one thing to send 1,000 e-mails a day and another to post an ad in a forum (on the same subject for that matter).
What really bothers me about spam is that they have to be so cowardly about it and spoof source email addresses like kajfaiojiu@iouem.com. I wouldn't mind it if they were honest about where they're sending SPAM from, then I can easily excercise my right to block it.
$cat
Yes, sadly every time I go online it costs me money. Telecom NZ sells its badwidth dearly - 20 cents/MB when I exceed my limit (each month I get a whopping 1000MB to play with to my heart's content. Weehee!). It's not much but as the number of spam I get increases so do my costs. Directly. I'm not billing for my time to open them all, my electricity to power the PC or any other stuff.
It's not just spam, it's any unsolicited use of my bandwidth - and yes, viruses should be included too.
I am a leaf on the wind
Besides annoying the spammer in question, is there REALLY anything they can legally do to him? I doubt it. I have fought with spammers before, trying to get taken off of their lists, and they threatened ME with telling my ISP (a college at that time) that I was harassing HIM. I believe he would have done it, too. So I resigned myself to deleting hundreds of spams per week, and getting used to it. I can't wait until they make RIAA-style computer-nuking legal...we can all just start a computerized World War III.
Not to nit pick,but...
/20 for a $4000 to $10,000, because they are going out of business.
Most big time spammers go right around the "TOS" by becoming an ISP themselves. All you have to do is buy a block of IP's from someone who has them up for sale. Believe me there are plenty of people who will sell you a
Next all you need to do is find a bandwidth provider and you're in business. Most bandwidth providers don't care what you do with your bandwidth as long as it's not illegal. And there isn't a lot of solid case law that spam is illegal. (I know we're all hoping for legislation to come through, but not yet...)
And there you go, no "Terms of Service" to break.
I hate spammers as much as the rest of you, but I really hate zeolots who have no idea how the business even works. The more you know about spammers the easier it will be to combat them.
Maybe I'm just jaded because most of my day is spent blocking this low-lifes.
Here in New Zealand you'll often see mailboxes with "no junk mail" stickers on them. When I worked in retail years ago we made sure our junkmail delivery company avoided stuffing those boxes - it's just not worth the damage to your brand name to upset them.
I am a leaf on the wind
the USPS does not charge you for each letter it puts in your mailbox.
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
DSL / Broadband reports is not a DSL provider. They are a website devoted to issues surrounding broadband Internet access. While I fail to see any real useful information in the post (or the thread), I also fail to see how this is advertisting. Their site doesn't even contain ads.
As you may have seen, antispamcard.com recently spammed our forum.
They posted 2 messages to your forum. Is that what this whole story is about?
I live in West Palm Beach! I might try bribing his garbage man to dump a truckload of junk in his yard.
Common sense is not so common.
All they have done so far is make a lot of links from one site/organization to another. There has been no action against the spammer. They are not certain of his real name nor his address. I think its great that they're tracking him down, but I would not go so far as to say they have been successful.
Call up your local post office and tell them you want to refuse all fourth class mail.
That will get rid of the majority of your postal problem.
This particular spammer is selling another company's software without permission.
Can someone with a bigger attention span provide a summary?
Notably, the most fervent researcher on the forum (Ameritec Tech) has discovered that the spammer was violating several people's copyrights. One of those people has replied and stated they are taking legal action against the spammer immediately for the violation.
For to end yet again.
So a particularly stupid spammer spams a forum frequented by technically clueful spam haters. After much effort, these guys might make life difficult for this particular spammer. At best this will result in a reduction of spam that's too small to measure. So why should anybody care?
I've noticed a few "diplomats" grubbing for money recently on the kernel mailing list. Nigerian vacations, anyone? Oddly, each sender/IP occurs only *once*, it seems. Even more oddly, no mention of "Free Speech" (or any other policy) is made. It seems that "Free STFU" goes hand-in hand with "Free Speech", for practical purposes.
As opposed to legal ones.
C|N>K
Don't get me wrong, I still applaud these guys efforts, but it's an steep uphill battle.
Are you using metered bandwidth? How much per kilobyte do you pay?
Even on unmetered bandwidth, due you think that the ISP will soak up additional costs by cutting their salaries/profits? Chances are they will pass the increased costs onto the customer. And certainly, it won't be the spammer who pays.
Certainly there is freedom of speech. But commercial speech does not enjoy the same freedom as private or political. There are limitations on all forms, but commercial is the most limited by far.
Yes, but free speech is also somewhat limited. For instance, commercial speech can be regulated. Spam for the most part is commercial speech and thus should be put under the same regulations as any other advertisment.
.Robots file on their website or subscribe to a DoNotCall List, email is an invitation to ones home and the decision to allow it into your home should be yours to make and the gov't should be able to help one regulate this. If you are paying for something and others are invading its sancitity, you should be able to ask the gov't to help you out. If folks are not willing to respect this privacy before you have to say back off, the gov't should give you the ability to tell these guys to fuck off before they even get there.
That and freedom of speech is not something that is regulated by the gov't in someone elses home. It is limited to public properties. On private properties, you still have what ever limits of the freedom of speech that apply as well as those of the folks that regulate the private area.
By these two limits, email can and should be regulated. Much the same way one can place a
Again, freedom of speech is not an unlimited freedom. I'm sick of folks that think if it. If Taco wanted to edit my posts here on his site, its NOT infringing against my freedom of speech to do so...at least from a constitutional stand point.
blah
The First Amendment has been interpreted by the US courts to me the protection of personal expression. .. E-mail could be considered to be therefore protected.
While the text of an email can be considered "speech", it's irrelevant - it can still (and should) be regulated, as the first amendment only guarantees that you have the right to speech, it doesn't guarantee that you have the right to any and every method of expressing that speech - especially when it's the receiver, or some other third party, which is paying for it.
Think about it - should you be able to walk into a TV station and demand to be given airtime to talk about your "100% natural penis enhancment" product? Of course not! Why should email be any different?
The first amendment gives you the right to say what you want. It does NOT guarantee you the right to force people to listen, nor the right to force someone else to pay for your speech.
Well, if UCE costs you money, you need to either work on making the practice illegal (which I don't care one way or the other about) or failing that, decide whether the financial cost you bring upon yourself by using the international e-mail system is worth the benefits you recieve from it.
It is NOT theft of service for you to recieve an e-mail you didn't request. It is a symptom of the system working exactly as originally designed. The e-mail system has the automatic and unquestioned acceptance of all messaging as it's fatal flaw. It is part of the deal. It's what allows you to send e-mail to your long lost friend that didn't know your e-mail address, or to e-mail some customer support service at Amazon or what not, or e-mail your family to let them know you're OK after surviving the Twin Towers disaster, or whatever. That's what it was designed to do. It has strengths and glaring weaknesses, and when you participate in the system, you are willingly putting yourself at the mercy those weaknesses. If someone sends you a truckload of stuff you don't want through your e-mail service, and you pay by the byte for downloading it, your service is no more being stolen than a zillion people hitting a website where they pay by the byte for traffic, because the service is functioning the way it was designed. If you couldn't afford all that, you shouldn't have signed up for a per-byte Internet service. If you want to avoid the pitfalls of e-mail you need to find or make yourself a service that doesn't have this particular fatal flaw. That, or keep working to make the practice illegal wherever you are, which patches a technical hole with a legal or political tub of spackle. However, unless they invade another person's equipment to send the UCE to you, they aren't committing any kind of crime by doing it, at least in the USA. And even if they do that, you aren't the one who's having the crime committed against them, unless it was your machine they used as the relay.
Here's a decent example...
I don't have cable television service because I have decided that I hate the flood of ads and other comercial idiocy far more than what I would use it for is worth. I could have rigged up a TIVO or ReplayTV or some other one of the myriad solutions out there for removing ads, if I wanted to, but I decided the hassle wasn't worth the cost. Just because I don't want the ads there, doesn't mean I have a leg to stand on demanding that they not be there. I can take measures to remove them or avoid them, and any cost I incur because of those measures is COMPLETELY MY FAULT. Same with UCE. If I don't like it, I either run a spam blocker of some ilk, take great pains to never give out my e-mail address to someone I don't trust completely with it, learn to deal with it, or chuck e-mail entirely. If I decide to do any of those things, I've only myself to blame for the inconvenience/cost associated with them, because it isn't theft for spammers to use the service the way it was designed.
So basically, you can send the invoice to whomever you damn well please, and it'll probably get deleted, ignored, or cause someone to bust a blood vessel at the gall of some idiot on the Internet who thinks he can send bills to whomever he thinks deserves to pay for his problems.
Most big time spammers go right around the "TOS" by becoming an ISP themselves.
/20 for a $4000 to $10,000, because they are going out of business.
Yes, but, unless they are becoming a tier 1 provider, they have to use an upstream provider, who probably have a TOS themselves, so no dice.
Believe me there are plenty of people who will sell you a
Well, as far as I know, you can't sell your ip blocks. You have to return it to the relevant provider/registry for re-assignement. Of course, just because they shouldn't doesn't mean they don't, but it's another point against them if it comes to litigation.
No sig
Whats worse? Constantly reading about SPAM prevention or receiving it ?
Duh. Receiving spam. You chose to go to Slashdot, read the article and post in its forum.
It's unfortunate that your comments were modded down to -1. Given the opportunity, I would have modded your statements Interesting even though I disagree with you.
This really drills down to the core issue of spam: money. Based upon what I've read on the subject, I (via my subscription fee) am subsidizing the cost of a spammer's business. I welcome any evidence that contradicts this, but until that time I would analogize your statement as follows: "It is their right to barge into your home and shove an ad in your face and it's your right to stop them....and by the way, this process will cost you $$."
That kind of thinking doesn't work because I can't legally put a bullet into a spammer's head. One's right to free speech ends at my doorstep. Any alternative interpretation of the First Amendment opens up a number of conflicts with the Fourth Amendment.
--K.
Sig: Bad people happen. Try to avoid being one of them.
So if the spammer weighs as much as a duck....
then he's made of wood?
and therefore?
A WITCH!
BURN HIM! BURN HIM!
sure as hell beats the Department of Justice
your sins into me, oh my beautiful one.
THe best revenge is a weblog post with his own info being higher in ranking than his own website :)
I should know I killed a spammer called Bruce Cullen(a movie extra-Outbreak one of the invefected victims that died in the movie) with this technique..
It was so bad that he stopped spamming altogether..:)
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Now you have the IPs, the URLs, the company names, etc.
So report these to every blackhole list available, report the hijacked material on the sites to the original publishers, check his providers for more spammers like him, and report the provider if necessary (so they start taking an active part in this as well) and get on to the next guy.
If ISPs began taking basic measures to block spam, refuse services to spammers, contact the providers of spammers, and blackhole domains, IP's, and networks that spam or encourage spammers, the spammers would eventually end up in a spammers ghetto of unscrupulous providers that could be easily blocked or filtered.
If it is left up to law enforcement and legislation, there will be loopholes as there are in the National Do-Not-Call Registry, and we will have opened up the door to congess regulating the use of email.
Read, L
too see /. able to offer a little assistance to the anti-spammer world. The /. effect removing weak servers from the WEB one at a time...
. I love the sound of burning women and screaming rubber....
"Chad has seen and dealt with all types of mass media, entertainment, publishing, high-tech, and marketing companies like BBDO(Top 6 ad agency), to Turner Broadcasting Networks(CNN, TBS, Headline News, etc.) as well as Disney and Time Warner Media to name a few..."
Hmmm...Well, I too have "seen and dealt with" BBDO (yes, I have seen their ads), Turner (I frequently watch CNN), Disney (sure I've seen that mouse and have bought stuff for my nieces at one of their stores), and Time Warner Media (I seen to recall that they have some sort of relationship with the aforementioned Turner...but I could be wrong
Take a look at http://www.spamgourmet.com.
You can make up email addresses on the fly and limit the number of replies to any quantity you like. When the number is exceeded the email is eaten.
... and you would be smoking, what?
...having served in the military for a significant period of time, when I saw the 'patriotic business statement' by Heckman I did a 'quick and dirty' search of some databases -no listing of a Brad or Bradley Heckman deployed as member of the U.S. Army during Operation Desert Shield or Desert Storm. Someone tell the #1 spam hunter at DSL report webpage to try and get a unit ID from Heckman? For some reason I can't post to that forum and I couldn't find an email address for the #1 spam hunter guy. The best way to sink a fraudulent business that preys on patriotic people is to show them he's a fraud.
"Just an idea".
-Anonymous Cowardly Good Guy
> Every time a neophyte friend or relative forwards a virus warning
> hoax to you, it costs you time and money, should that be illegal
> too?
In a word? Yes. That would be an unsolicited chain forward, i.e.,
a message that had already been forwarded to the forwarder and was
now, without request of the recipient, being forwarded again. There
is no valid reason ever to do that.
However, the reversed-charges argument for making spam illegal is,
as far as I'm concerned, the icing on the cake. The really strong
reasons why it should be illegal have to do with fraud and
harrassment.
Vanishingly close to 100% of spam is fraudulent, at least in terms
of forging headers. (Fraudulent content in the body is quite
common as well, but it's the headers primarily that concern me.)
Even if only non-fraudulent spam were legal, that would be a
tremendous improvement. Since the spammers would have to register
a fresh domain name in order to force me to update my filters, it
would not be ecconomically feasible to do that for each and every
message. I could prewash the spam out with a blacklist, saving
lots of CPU cycles for my bayesian classification system.
Now, the harrassment argument, which IMO is the truly rock-solid
one: if I got anything like anywhere near approaching close to
as many unsolicited phone calls per day from the same outfit,
and if they behaved in the same fashion (refused to identify
themselves, refused to stop contacting me), law enforcement
would be all over the case, and if they could track down the
people responsible, they would go to jail. That the contact
is by email rather than phone shouldn't matter: these creeps
should go to jail. There's one particular spamhaus in Asia
that I would pay good money to know who they are and be able
to shut them down, because they just won't leave me alone. I'm
tired of getting seventy messages a day from these cretins.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Cool! Can I come to your house and exercise my right to kick you in the nuts? Of course, you have the right to block it.
How do you feel about the hundreds of internet worms and script kiddies and failed spam relay attempts that are interfering with the bandwidth you pay for? Is that OK too? Mind if I run an extension cord to the outlet on your patio so I don't have to pay for my own electricity? Of course, you have to right to unplug it, but I'll just come back tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day. And I'll tunnel under your house and tap into the wiring in your basement where you don't see. But you have the right to spend every waking hour trying to stop me from leeching off the stuff you pay for. I hope you don't waste too much time fighting me, though... I need you to go to work and earn money to pay for the stuff that I'm stealing from you, so that I don't have to go to work myself and earn an honest living. Wow, I love your attitude! Maybe I can hook myself up to your water and gas lines, too.
There's cyber-libertarianism, and then there's advocating total lawlessness. When everybody has a "right" to do whatever they want to anybody, that's the same as nobody having any rights at all.
I think we should just do a Slashdot story linking to Spammer websites every couple of days, the DoS attack should be brutal.
In his comment he claims to be the victim of a DoS attack. Pleading,
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
On behalf of my good friend Kaj Faiojiu, webmaster of iouem.com, I'd like to ask you not to post his email address in public.
Thanks.
worked like a charm last time.
Please tell me the "SPAMMER" did more then post 2 messages in an forum which actually shares the same topic as his posts?
Or is it just enough that someone labeled him a "Spammer" that we have to "dump garbage on his lawn"?
Was it just an AD? IF this really was only about 2 posts in a FORUM, not emails, not anything else, something that the forum moderator could delete if requested, then this actually makes me sick.
I mean, I dislike spammers just as much as the next guy. But why is this a newsworthy story? Allegedly, someone posts a message about their anti-spam product on an anti-spamming message board. The claim is made that the poster is a spammer. So the story becomes that a spammer posts an advert to an anti-spamming message board.
Aside from it being a bit uncooth, why is this suddenly The Hunt for Red October? Sure, it was kind of a stupid thing, but what's the big wreck that I should be rubbernecking over?
How 'bout a good ol' tar 'n featherin'?
Unfortunately, some spammers are using so called "reverse proxies" installed on hacked machines to host the webpages / email boxes mentioned in the crap they send you. To find the true address for the spammer you need to locate and reverse engineer the hacked machine.
There were many messages and the moderators of the antispam foum at dslreports/broadband.com have deleted all but a few of them.
/.ers not knowing anything about dsl reports/broadband.com. It's like the consumer reports of xDSL and Cable broadband. There is even offical online realtime tech support provided in some of the ISP forums by the some broadband ISP's . ISPs are rated by the consumer there as well.
I am really having quite a laugh about so many
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
junkbusters.com
or dmaconsumers.org
Let's pick this one apart piece by piece.
And spam, like junk mail, is protected by the constitution. So although it may be a great inconvenience, the First Amendment will never fall to inconvenience.
I don't think so. Only because unsolicited faxes, soliciting in public and business areas and other solicitation laws are in effect.
Also, anti-spam laws tend to hurt small businesses far more than established companies.
Yeah, usually Spammer businesses. It's like saying, "But banning small and cute rodent killing will hurt small rabbit killing businesses!"
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Solution: Don't buy anything you get a spam for.
But you might not know how the spammer gets paid? Again I do know because I used to work for these people. There are three different contracts a client can make with a spammer. First is paying a set amount of money per each email sent, this is very small amount, 1/100 of a cent. So the money to be made for a spammer is in the number of unique email address he/she can send email to. The second contract type is page views. You know the spam with the pretty graphics. Under this contract type, each time you open one of these emails the spammer gets paid. And just how does the spammer know you opened one of his/her email? The images come from the spammer's web servers and logs you image request. It is a little more complicated than that but you get the picture. And last contract type is web traffic to the client's site that results in a sale, again not going into details. Cha-ching, they both get paid.
Before you start whining that you don't buy any thing that was spammed;
1) Someone out there does and you can't stop them.
2) I don't care.
The only other recourse is to try to get the spammer booted off of his up stream provider. The spammer's provider(s) could be some little Podunk ISP or leased lines from the big boys. And the only way to get them booted is to complain to the right people, and no the /. forum is not the place.
How is this done?
Forget about doing whois on any domain or machine names you find in the email headers, they are most likely forged or just plain crap string of characters. Grab the first IP address of the smtp server closest to the origin of the message. Take that IP address and go to www.arin.com and pug it into the (IP) whois search. (ARIN assigns the IP addresss in the US and knows whom they are assigned to.) If the IP address is assigned to a US company it will give who and how to contact them. If the IP address is assigned in another country then the registry will be listed and just follow the link and repeat the (IP) whois search there.
Usually an abuse@the_ip_owners email address is listed. Now you have to do is forward a copy of the spam to that address. If enough people forward email/complain spammers get the boot.
Will you take the blue pill or the red pill?
Spammers don't send out millions of emails as a fun and educational hobby. People and companies pay money to advertise this way. They should be the targets of action against spam.
Unfortunately the companies they work for are often just as filthy as they are themselves. Not worth much to go against them.
E.g. I have become a victim of a Russian spammer who works for "companies" like mail15.com. They send spam about there "new mail service" to mostly Russian mail addresses, but instead of using a valid reply address they forge random sender addresses within a domain that I own. This has resulted in thousands of bounce messages sent to me, and an exposure to a herd of clueless system administrators who cannot setup a mailserver (those mailservers sometimes re-try every minute for several days to send a bounce to a nonexistent address)
The Spammer himself cannot be located, because they use open proxies on cable- and DSL networks. The owners of those networks don't give a damn.
The mailservice itself is run by ruthless people in Russia who do not mind if someone complains.
They have also defended their application form against measures like you describe.
So what can I do??
The only real persons to attack here are the clueless families that have installed Internet sharing software on their Windows PC. They are the medium that facilitates this anonymous spam.
I don't understand why the author of AnalogX Proxy has not been locked away as a terrorist.
"..NP.." ? Nitpicking is one word.. :)
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
Let's say I've got the best lock I can get (Spamassassin).. I'm still getting 100 advertisers per day at least testing the doorknob.. most of them bring lockpicks (l0ckpicks...) with them, and about 5 a day manage to pick my lock and sucessfully shove their advertising in my face, even though they can obviously see that I'm trying to avoid it.. and all of them are wearing ski-masks.
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
It should be made law everywhere that [SPAM] or [ADVERTISMENT] or something like that should be included in the header/subject.
Then any spam that doesn't bare the mark should be sent to some organisation that fines the company advertised.
Chasing the spammers is hard, the people paying the spammers should be targetted instead.
Hey, two out of three ain't that bad, for a spam apologist.
"Kill the pig! Cut his throat! Drain his blood!
kill the pig! Cut his throat! Kill the pig! Bash him in!" they yelled and started their intense dance under the darkening sky.
I am unable to get to slashdot from my IP. I get on an open proxy and I'm able to get to slashdot. Banned? In God's name, why?
> Come on. Is it really that hard to download a mail content
> filter, or hit delete?
If you can even ask that question, it's obvious you don't get very
much spam.
Mail content filters, even the best ones (full bayesian classification
is at this time the best available) mostly don't work, or require
huge amounts of effort to "train" them and then still partly don't
work. As for hitting delete, if I get RSI that way, can I send you
my medical bills?
The fact that the contact method is email shouldn't matter: any
outfit that contacts you seventy times a day and refuses to identify
itself and refuses to stop, for _years_, is actively harrassing you.
That's criminal, and I want them incarcerated and jailed. If they
were using the phone instead of email, that's exactly what would
happen. No, telemarketers, though annoying, are not the same; we
get maybe five calls a day tops, and any given outfit never calls
us more than once a day, usually not that often. Spam pours in
continuously, every hour day and night. Additionally, you can
tell a telemarketer not to call you anymore and generally that
specific telemarketing firm will abide by that. If you try to ask
a spammer not to send you any more, they put you on their "lots
and lots of spam" list. (Yeah, I read the article about the
wealthy spammer who claimed to honor no-more-spam requests, but
even assuming she was telling the truth about that, she would be in
the minority.)
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Filtering spam out of your inbox helps to make it more profitable for spammers. Anyone who is smart enough to filter spam is smart enough to ignore the products anway. Instead, route it into a holding bin, regex it for URLs and once or twice a day, download everything from those URLs to the bit bucket.
Get all your friends to do the same thing. Bandwidth costs spammers money, so make them pay for sending spam by using that bandwidth. They sent you are URL, so they can hardly complain if you take advantage of it.