Slashdot Mirror


The Economics Of Spamming

Shardleton writes "What kind of an idiot would buy penis-enlargement pills? Even more idiotic, who would buy them from a spammer? Apparently LOTS of people, according to this article at Wired. The operators of a spamvertised order site left their customer logs exposed. There were 6,000 orders for the pills since July 4. Sayeth Wired: "Do the math and you begin to understand why spammers are willing to put up with the wrath of spam recipients, Internet service providers and federal regulators.""

641 comments

  1. And they don't even have to sell anything by JohnGrahamCumming · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Another interesting viewpoint can be found in this article which points out that spammers don't even have to sell anything to make money. They mention a number of schemes:

    Offering e-mail recipients "free pornography" if they download a software program. The program often provides the pornography, but only after the user's computer dials a 1-900 number to an overseas location, racking up hundreds of dollars in phone charges.

    "Pump and dump" stock schemes, in which a spammer sends e-mails touting a certain stock and encourages people to buy it. The stock's value goes up, and spammers sell it at a profit.

    Accepting payment for an item without sending it. Spammers bet that someone buying Viagra or pills for the enlargement of body parts would be too embarrassed to call the police or Better Business Bureau.

    Of course, if there was ever need for proof that there's a sucker born every minute, just check out this quote from the Wired article:

    There was a picture on the top of the page that said, 'As Seen on TV,' and I guess that made me think it was legit.

    John.

    1. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      even more amazing is a coherent FP

    2. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by JohnGrahamCumming · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      And here's the key to a coherent FP (for which I think I should win some sort of prize... hey Slashdot editors how about a free T-shirt?).

      I subscribe to Slashdot so I get to see the stories before you can reply to them. If there's a story I have something worthwhile commenting on I fully prepare my reply in Emacs' *scratch* buffer and then copy and paste it in when I can reply.

      John.

    3. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by Dante333 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Of course, if there was ever need for proof that there's a sucker born every minute, just check out this quote from the Wired article:

      There was a picture on the top of the page that said, 'As Seen on TV,' and I guess that made me think it was legit.


      What channel are they watching?

    4. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey Slashdot editors how about a free T-shirt?

      or free membership in GNAA?

    5. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by stratjakt · · Score: 4, Funny

      Accepting payment for an item without sending it. Spammers bet that someone buying Viagra or pills for the enlargement of body parts would be too embarrassed to call the police or Better Business Bureau.

      The last reminds me of a scheme a friend and I cooked up in high school, which seemed completely legal to us.

      Sell through magazine ads (ok no internet then, just modify for the times) a subscription/package of some pornos, nothing special, maybe just your usual college-girls-gone-wild stuff, for a lower-than-usual price, like 5 or 10 bucks.

      Now, you collect a ton of money, then to everyone who sent you cash, you mail them back a letter, explaining that for (whatever reason) you cannot send them the porno they ordered, and you enclose a refund cheque for the full amount.

      The catch is, you name you company "Scat-Fetish-Jizz-Gobbler Corporation", or something really sick and embarassing.

      You bank on the fact that most people wouldnt suffer the embarassment of facing the bank teller for 5 or 10 bucks.

      But you're in the clear - after all you did refund their money.

      This was back before ubiquitous ATMs and online payments and all that jazz.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    6. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Wow! You, Guy Ritchie, and countless other people have had the exact same idea! I wonder if Snopes can figure out where the idea actually came from.

    7. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by missing000 · · Score: 1

      And here's the key to a coherent FP (for which I think I should win some sort of prize...

      For being first?

      Wow, what an accomplishment. Maybe they should give you a cash reward while they are at it.

    8. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      Hey, my bank is Scat-Fetish-Jizz-Gobbler! My god you should see the nasty checks I have to choose from. I try to stay away from the books of checks where they pages are sticking together.

      Say, you could also deposit the money into a short term money market and be earning interest on it for the few weeks it is in your posession.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    9. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What channel are they watching?

      Watching or wanking off to?

    10. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a picture on the top of the page that said, 'As Seen on TV,' and I guess that made me think it was legit.

      Ah, so it was an American.

    11. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by Theaetetus · · Score: 5, Informative
      Wow! And you and your friend cooked this up all on your own in high school?

      -T

    12. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by mosch · · Score: 1

      espn carries advertisements for a product that promises to increase the size of "that special male area" late at night, as do a number of other non-porn channels.

    13. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ideas don;t come from only one place necessarily. That's a complete infofascist myth - it's completely possible for multiple people to independently have essentially the same idea. That's why it should be clear to someone willing to apply a moment's logical thought that patents are about control, not innovation.

    14. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by Eccles · · Score: 1

      What channel are they watching?

      Watch Howard Stern on E! some time.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    15. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by a_n_d_e_r_s · · Score: 0, Redundant

      That schema is stolen from a movie.

      --
      Just saying it like it are.
    16. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by Scalli0n · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Dude, wow! You stole that straight from the movie Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels! !!!

      --
      Sig & Below
      Yuck Fou
    17. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I own a home and a car, does that make me a landfascist and an autofascist?

    18. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by stratjakt · · Score: 3, Funny

      Years before the movie came out.

      It's not like the idea of the century, it's completely concievable for anyone with some spare time to think up the same thing.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    19. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by Wumpus · · Score: 0

      I'm really glad I don't have a TV.

    20. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by heli0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you read the latest issue of Wired they have an article about the sex.com guy and he says that he advertises for a bestiality site now because the site is fake and people are too embarassed to report it to their credit card companies for a charge-back.

      --
      Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
    21. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by nil8 · · Score: 1

      Gasp! They are charging people and not actually selling them anything? Sounds like our friends at SCO...

    22. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      Another way spammers can make money is to sell "marketing" to other people. A fair number of small businesses (not net-savvy) have fallen for the "opt-in list" scam where the spammer claims they have a list of many many thousands of people who have opt'ed-in to receive advertising. Of course the spammer has just scraped the addresses off the Internet (even off Slashdot or SA. :^)

      After the spammer takes the money and runs, the complaints, filtering and blocks-lists hit and hit hard. It's very sad when these business-people show up in NANAE wondering what the hell to do now. They certainly didn't mean to spam. (Unfortunitely spammers also show up claiming the same thing, so most admins are wary.)

      Fair warning to anyone thinking about buying an opt-in list, they're less common than unicorns. (Why would someone give permission for his email address to be sold to any/everyone?) When spammers say "opt-in" or even "double-opt-in" (bleh!) they don't mean an actual opt-in with checks to make sure that person really did opt-in. A confirmation email with unique key is one way.

      If someone does want information on how to manage proper opt-in, ask in news.admin.net-abuse.email, there are various FAQs around. If it reduces spam, we love it! [tinw]

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    23. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool, I learned the origins of this scam and snopes.com has a flashing banner ad that says I'm a winner! Lucky!

    24. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by Broodje · · Score: 1

      That was a great movie. I find it amazing that these guys came up with the same idea as you and put it in a movie. The same exact scheme! Thats really cool! Groan.

    25. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by camusflage · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Courtesy of IMDB, from Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels:
      Listen to this one then; you open a company called the Arse Tickler's Faggot Fan Club. You take an advert in the back page of some gay mag, advertising the latest in arse-intruding dildos, sell it a bit with, er . . . I dunno, "does what no other dildo can do until now", latest and greatest in sexual technology. Guaranteed results or money back, all that bollocks. These dills cost twenty-five each; a snip for all the pleasure they are going to give the recipients. They send a cheque to the company name, nothing offensive, er, Bobbie's Bits or something, for twenty-five. You put these in the bank for two weeks and let them clear. Now this is the clever bit. Then you send back the cheques for twenty-five pounds from the real company name, Arse Tickler's Faggot Fan Club, saying sorry, we couldn't get the supply from America, they have sold out. Now you see how many of the people cash those cheques; not a single soul, because who wants his bank manager to know he tickles arses when he is not paying in cheques!
      --
      The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
    26. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You're right. If it wasn't an American, it would have read something like this:

      At, top of page there was, is a piccutre, said that was 'As scene on TV' and, I, guess was legit, made me think. Also, US suck as compare to my piss-ant little cou7ntry. Our chief export is mud and we have 2 month per year holiday but, we rule, not like US which suck ass. We could not be fighting our way out of a paper bag and we live in a police state and/or a welfare state and/or a state run by religion, but US still suck ass. Also I speek my language and English so well that you should be proud of me and which is evidence more thjat US suck ass and all is ignorent over ther.

    27. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by leviramsey · · Score: 1

      Re: opt-in email

      I'm going to shortly be sending large amounts of email. Specifically, I'll be selling subscriptions to a football (NFL for now... I'm seriously looking at doing English Premiership, Bundesliga, Serie A, and La Liga) picks. Now, is this acceptably opt-in:

      • Customer uses paypal or some other online payment service where the email address of the account is exposed.
      • I send a mail to that address to confirm... if that address sends back that they wish to subscribe with a different address, then...
      • I send a mail to that address for confirmation.

      Is that a sufficiently strong opt-in process?

    28. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on whether you would demand that someone stops owning a copy of your home or car, really. Since I very much doubt you do monkey-dances at junctions demanding everyone driving a similar ford fiesta or whatever to you stops doing so, or insist that all similar houses to your own are bulldozed, I doubt you qualify for such a title.

      If someone took your home or car you wouldn't have your home or car anymore. If someone took a copy of your car, you'd still have your car, they'd have a car, hey, everyone's better off!

      I have no problem with you asserting rights over YOUR copy of some information, but damned if I'm going to let you tell me what to do with another copy of similar or identical information I received. Copyright is incompatible with a free society, not to mention anticapitalist, since it's an artificial barrier to market entry enforced by the government.

      Note also that I consider the right to be recognised as an author/composer of a work completely different to copyright (interestingly, most countries have only weak protection for such a concept, it's not the same as copyright at all!). I believe an author has every right to associate his name with a work. I do NOT believe he has a right to restict its duplication.

    29. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by pyros · · Score: 1
      This was back before ubiquitous ATMs and online payments and all that jazz.

      Don't you mean all that jizz?

    30. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously you're a member of USA (Users of Stupid Acronyms).

    31. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, we believe you. I was actually pulling this scam in pre-renaissance times. One guy I know (my best friend's brother's former wife's roommate) used to sell cave art this way.

    32. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by Some+Dumbass... · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      even more amazing is a coherent FP

      Why was this modded funny rather than interesting? It's a good point. It's hard to type up something that's actually coherent (much less smart) so quickly. I guess that none of the "First Post!" whores are subscribers.

    33. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by Mantorp · · Score: 1

      Would people buy that? How is it different from what that "Miss call me now woman" was doing?

    34. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Homer, that was an episode of Happy Days!"

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    35. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by geekoid · · Score: 1

      First of all, let me state how amusing it is for someone to not believe what someone says on the internet based on something they read on the internet.

      Now, that little 'scam' may be an internet urban ledgend, but it has been tried via. magazines.

      Along with about a zillion other scams involving porno.

      Now don't believe everything you read on the internet, including stuff that say other stuff is false.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    36. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      I'm not a big fan of PayPal, and I'm not an expert on mailing-list systems. There might be something off the shelf available that will do the job. In theory it sounds okay. How do they find out about you to use PayPal? You need a system that can't spoofed somehow. As I said, news.admin.net-abuse.email might be the place to ask. Suggestion: start with "I want to do this the right way." Expect some flack and possible redirection to another newsgroup for particular mailing list software.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    37. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by Kinetix303 · · Score: 2, Informative
    38. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by skookum · · Score: 1

      This is just a variation on a theme... There are a number of business practices out there that capitalize on the lazyness (or in your case, shyness) of the consumer. For example, mail-in rebates: you get to advertise a low price to make the deal, and in the majority of cases the buyer is too lazy to jump through the hoops properly to get the refund (lost the reciept, forgot to save the reciept, didn't remember to take the proper form from the store, doesn't have any stamps on hand, etc.) In the worst case when you do honor the refund you get an interest-free loan from the consumer for a good 6 months or so, which I'm sure is good for the bottom-line.

      Another popular one is the "sign up for this FREE thing! No risk!" with the added bonus of "if you don't cancel you're automatically enrolled in our nonfree program." This works especially well if you can weasel out the CC number, or ever better: if you ARE the CC merchant. Those little automatic charges go completely unnoticed on people's statements a lot of times. You get bonus points for cooking up a "yearly dues" situation where you can charge one large lump fee and further hide yourself. Of course the poor schmuck can cancel (and usually get back all their money if they were tricked) but it takes work to call up and wait on hold, etc.

    39. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by thogard · · Score: 1

      A guy that works at the local pub has created a very nice book on Napal. Some how he got the idea that he would try to get enough orders by sending out email and he found an opt-in company that had a list of people that would be interested the topick. They charged him nearly $5000 to send the spam to something like 100,000 people. I told him it was a scam as soon as he told me about it but he had already wire the money to a place in Floridia. Their test run of 100 got nearly 100 people to visit his web site comparted to the average of about 13 a day. Just after the spam went out he hit nearly 20 on one day. The result is $5000 into a spamers pocket and I'm not sure they even sent out any spam.

      A few days ago I found out a guy at work is spaming usenet. Claims only one message a month per group. When did that become acceptable? I told him if I ever see one of his ads in a group I run, I'll break into his server and destory it. Considering he comes around to ask us BOFHs for security advice and we keep pointing out why things are wide open, he understands the threat is real and I think he has seen the light. If I've run into two real spamers that don't have a clue in the past few months, how many are there running around? I think too many and may mailbox agrees.

    40. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno about the rest of the world, but Companies House in the UK will reject any attempt to register a company name that is offensive in nature. The banks insist on only using the registered names (or a real name if you are human). Changing your own name by deed poll would not be allowed if the name is offensive either.

      So there.

    41. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by Wumpus · · Score: 2, Funny

      Damn! My secret identity was revealed!

      I'll go sulk now. And then sculpt, or read Proust, or watch American Idol...

    42. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      "The catch is, you name you company "Scat-Fetish-Jizz-Gobbler Corporation", or something really sick and embarassing. You bank on the fact that most people wouldnt suffer the embarassment of facing the bank teller for 5 or 10 bucks."

      Thank god for ATMs that let you deposit the check in the envelope all from the privacy of your own car.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    43. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by Urox · · Score: 1

      It gets worse. I had something like this happen to me on some travel business that came advertised through Turbo tax. You'd think something attached to a very largely distributed program would have a good reputation.

      I signed up for the $1 fee expecting to get something travel-ish thing (like luggage) free with the membership. Never got what was advertised. Called them, they gave me some story that I didn't request the proper thing and instead were going to give me "discount coupons" to some hotel I would never use. I told them that I had the program still that clearly advertised what they were to give me. They wouldn't budge. I told them to cancel everything. A month later, I noticed the annual charge on my credit card. That got them a stop payment on that charge plus a call to the BBB.. who despite now having a bad record on them are still corporate whores who will erase larger business complaints.. I think three months later they decided to credit the amount back. But they were still slimes about trying to pull a bait and switch plus slip in charges. I didn't bother trying to get the $1 back as it was four months later.. how many other people find out a company is crap and write it off? How many are pulled in by solid companies carrying their advertisments?

      Once this little problem I'm having with Sony gets sorted out (my warranty clearly states a year parts and labor and all of their computers say 90 days.. guess who is supposed to win... I've been fighting with them the past three months) I think I'll post something long and nasty about their service and BS. Until then, I want my electronics fixed damnit!

      --
      "Would you rather have a playstation addicted dork wearing a star wars t-shirt?"
    44. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 1
      it's completely possible for multiple people to independently have essentially the same idea
      That's true.
      One day, in one of my first computer science classes, I learned about stacks and queues.
      Stack - Push items in one end, pop them out the same end.
      Queue - Push items in one end, pop them out the other end.
      I independently came up with the idea of a data structure where you could push and pop items from either end.
      I called it a "tract", and the operations were eat, vomit, excrete, and supposit.
      I was very disappointed the next day when we learned about deques.
      --
      Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
    45. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      You know, it was just last year that I said:

      Depends on whether you would demand that someone stops owning a copy of your home or car, really. Since I very much doubt you do monkey-dances at junctions demanding everyone driving a similar ford fiesta or whatever to you stops doing so, or insist that all similar houses to your own are bulldozed, I doubt you qualify for such a title.

      If someone took your home or car you wouldn't have your home or car anymore. If someone took a copy of your car, you'd still have your car, they'd have a car, hey, everyone's better off!

      I have no problem with you asserting rights over YOUR copy of some information, but damned if I'm going to let you tell me what to do with another copy of similar or identical information I received. Copyright is incompatible with a free society, not to mention anticapitalist, since it's an artificial barrier to market entry enforced by the government.

      Note also that I consider the right to be recognised as an author/composer of a work completely different to copyright (interestingly, most countries have only weak protection for such a concept, it's not the same as copyright at all!). I believe an author has every right to associate his name with a work. I do NOT believe he has a right to restict its duplication.

    46. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It must be nice to be so easily amused. Do you burst out laughing every time you see a squirrel too?

      Nowhere in the Snopes writeup did they claim the story was false. "Legend" does not imply fiction. Neither did Theaetetus claim that stratjakt's little annecdote was false -- just that the idea was unoriginal. As you say, many similar scams have been used over the years.

    47. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by boogy+nightmare · · Score: 1

      Gosh...

      that means you have seen lock,stock and two smoking barrels

      --
      Kingdom of Loathing (www.kingdomofloathing.com) Addicted is me
    48. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice to see someone agrees!

      I realise that you may have been trying to "prove" a point - but I don't care! That's the thing - I am HAPPY to see you repeat the information pattern in that comment, and in fact state that you said something identical last year! I'll hold you to that in all future dealings with you, unless you rescind the statement - In which case I'll permanently record the information that your are a liar!

      Information is strengthened by repetition.

    49. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never thought I'd live to see the day where such an blithering example of ADD would get modded so high. You managed to take two completely unrelated concepts and mash them together to whore a little karma.

      What's not so surprising...

      is that it worked.

      Huzzah!

    50. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno man. Those posts get up there so fast I'm thinking it's the editors.

    51. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never said the idea has to come from one place - it's just that this particular idea has been mentioned in so many different places and so often that it's highly unlikely (but, of course, not impossible) that anyone here actually thought of it on their own and actually did it.

    52. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by ROU+Nuisance+Value · · Score: 1

      Add to that: Charging $30 for a lifetime subscription with "unlimited access to all the thousands movies on The Internet": GetMoviesOnline.com

    53. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'll go sulk now. And then sculpt, or read Proust, or watch American Idol...

      What are you, a masochist or something?

    54. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should quit traumatizing women sexually. I should know: I'm a medical doctor. I own a mansion and a yacht.

    55. Re:And they don't even have to sell anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dajksh dskj sdsbh shg djhsg a7ut oqwiu owkjmn fnb ac

  2. a guess by matt4077 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Maybe they work?

    1. Re:a guess by azav · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You HAVE to be kidding.

      You could sell a canned vacuum this way. Enough people will bite at a product if it is marketed correctly.

      Look at the "pet rocks" that sold in the 70's.

      --
      - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
    2. Re:a guess by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Look at the "pet rocks" that sold in the 70's."

      I'd have to say you missed the point of the Pet Rock. The product was actually the (moderately) funny book that came with the rock.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    3. Re:a guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, they were selling canned vacuum in the 1920s for the vacuum tubes in the radios. Of course it was a scam, as a vacuum tube is sealed at the factory.

    4. Re:a guess by TrippTDF · · Score: 2, Funny

      Look at the "pet rocks" that sold in the 70's

      -or the popularity of AOL in the 90s

    5. Re:a guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Google for jelquing. It works, but you have to spend a LOT of time doing it.

      The pills just increase blood flow..

      yeah shutup. It's like anorexia of the dick. No matter what other people say, you still see yourself as in adequate.

    6. Re:a guess by Mannerism · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Look at the "pet rocks" that sold in the 70's."

      I'd have to say you missed the point of the Pet Rock. The product was actually the (moderately) funny book that came with the rock.


      Yours came with a book?

      Crap.

    7. Re:a guess by carlos_benj · · Score: 1

      Oh, man. You must've gotten a Pet Rock knock off (or a chip off the old rock?).

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

    8. Re:a guess by Tomble · · Score: 1

      Hey, I could you lot some replacement rocks, I've got plenty and these are 100% authentic! Honest!

      --
      Be careful! New moon tonight.
    9. Re:a guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Maybe they work?

      I'm sorry, you sound like someone who might give money to spammers. Please go stand by the stairs so that we may protect you.

    10. Re:a guess by IIRCAFAIKIANAL · · Score: 1

      There was a book?!?

      Jeez, no wonder mine died...

      --
      Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
  3. Uh-oh by Ominous+Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    There's now going to be about 6,000 very embarrassed men if these logs remain accessible.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une sig.
    1. Re:Uh-oh by twoslice · · Score: 5, Funny

      They were ordering for a friend

      --

      From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
    2. Re:Uh-oh by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
      " There's now going to be about 6,000 very embarrassed men if these logs remain accessible."

      The log is not accessible anymore. And if you read the article, a bunch of women were on the customer list as well.

    3. Re:Uh-oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      They were ordering for a friend

      Yeah, their little friend.

    4. Re:Uh-oh by AntiOrganic · · Score: 1

      And if you read the article, a bunch of women were on the customer list as well.

      Or men using their spouses' credit cards and names due to embarassment.

    5. Re:Uh-oh by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't know about that, the number seems to be down to only 404.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    6. Re:Uh-oh by MadCow42 · · Score: 5, Funny

      >>They were ordering for a friend

      And being involved in your "friend's" erectile dysfunction is somehow LESS embarassing?

      Hmmm...

      MadCow

      --
      I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
    7. Re:Uh-oh by BadSpellar · · Score: 1

      And if you read the article, a bunch of women were on the customer list as well.

      That's very interesting. There are two possibilities here. Either they are unhappy with their husband's penis size, or they want to grow their own. You can't get much smaller than "I don't have one".

    8. Re:Uh-oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think it's *men* buying it?

    9. Re:Uh-oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, there seems to be a great deal of criticism of those who buy p3n1s enlargement pills.

      Well, I had a witty rebuke...but everytime I try typing it I get all riled and knock the computer desk over. And with with big viagra dose this morning...it may be a few hours before I can sit at the computer again.

    10. Re:Uh-oh by mike_mgo · · Score: 1

      If their logs were that accessible I don't think that they would be on the list.

    11. Re:Uh-oh by haa...jesus+christ · · Score: 1

      they were ordering for a family member.

      oh, wait.

    12. Re:Uh-oh by arkanes · · Score: 0

      Viagra actually has a stimulating effect on women. You can't get it perscribed by a doctor since it's not FDA approved for female use, which is probably why women who're interested in it get it from shady sites like this one.

    13. Re:Uh-oh by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

      I only ordered them for the articles...

    14. Re:Uh-oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's for the dog

    15. Re:Uh-oh by leviramsey · · Score: 1
      they were ordering for a family member.

      Were all the orders from Georgia?

      cue "Duelling Banjos"...

  4. Always wondered... by RobertB-DC · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... I had always wondered if anyone would actually buy from a spammer.

    Any chance the spammer did a media honeypot? Released fake records to make marketers *think* he was successful?

    --
    Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    1. Re:Always wondered... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

      There seem to be an awful lot of flustered folks to back that hoax up with...

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    2. Re:Always wondered... by inertia187 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, they're called a honeytokens. Good point.

      --
      A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
    3. Re:Always wondered... by vladkrupin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Any chance the spammer did a media honeypot? Released fake records to make marketers *think* he was successful?

      All that effort just to prove that spamming works? I don't think so. On the other hand, a company that needs spammers to advertize their products may do something like that.

      We'll prove to you that spamming works and then you can come and SPAM for us. Sounds like a good plan, eh?

      --

      Jobs? Which jobs?
  5. Public Disgrace!! by Sklivvz · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ok, reading the article and following a couple links - here's the penis pill spammer!

    Braden Bournival
    561 Montgomery. St, Manchester, NH 03102
    Tel. #: (603) 669-7422
    Email: frappe_boy@yahoo.com

    Do whatever you want with this info but don't blame ME!!!

    1. Re:Public Disgrace!! by BWJones · · Score: 1, Interesting

      There have got to be some laws these guys are breaking. Why does not the police or government get these guys? We know who they are, where they live, and which companies they are working for. These guys are costing government, businesses and consumers beaucoup $$'s in terms of increased hardware requirements to deal with SPAM load, not to mention the time involvement. What is the holdup?

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    2. Re:Public Disgrace!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whiel I would ordinarily say 'don't do that' to people releasing someone's personal info to the public, and I can't really see how releasing these douches info could ever cross the line.

    3. Re:Public Disgrace!! by Ominous+Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because they are actually delivering the pills, they aren't breaking the laws. It's legitimate advertising, kinda. I mean, you take the pill, see attractive member of the preferred sex, and your penis enlarges by many inches.

      Because of weird legal loopholes, spammers can legitimately email you by way of lists they got from other companies that once got your email because you agreed to let them sell it when you clicked "OK" without reading the entirety of the 5 page privacy policy.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une sig.
    4. Re:Public Disgrace!! by eyegone · · Score: 1

      Because investigating and prosecuting crimes costs money. Just imagine the outcry on Slashdot and elsewhere if a politician were to suggest giving more of the people's money to government bureaucrats .

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    5. Re:Public Disgrace!! by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 3, Interesting
      "There have got to be some laws these guys are breaking. Why does not the police or government get these guys?"

      RTFA. The FTC says there is no proof that these things work but it does not have the resources to follow up. I guess there are bigger fish to fry.

      Btw, it also says that the guy has a strange sense of ethics and honoured all refund requests. He's also a national-level expert chess player.

    6. Re:Public Disgrace!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The correct approach is not to legislate against spam (much as I hate spam, I don't think legislation is the answer), but to legislate for discretional carriage of mails by mail servers, so that they can pick and choose what mails to relay based on cryptographic signatures. Many ISPs are afraid to lock down their mail servers in such a manner because of the possible loss of "common carrier" status. But I don't think that's fair - it's not contravening spammers much vaunted rights to "free speech" if the first server computer they talk to doesn't listen.

    7. Re:Public Disgrace!! by chrisgeleven · · Score: 1

      Whoa that is literally down the street from me...

    8. Re:Public Disgrace!! by heli0 · · Score: 0, Funny

      I have said this before, and I am dead serious so do not mod this as funny, the only way to deal with this is if spammers fear for their safety. That could occur in two ways:

      1 - Electronic Market
      Similar to the Iowa Poltical Market people would buy futures in when a particular spammer would die, and when enough people stood to gain from a particular spammers death then market forces would apply themselves naturally.

      2 - Vigilantism
      Maybe it would start out as making their lives unpleasant, and would escalate as the need arose.

      --
      Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
    9. Re:Public Disgrace!! by jcr · · Score: 1

      Because they are actually delivering the pills, they aren't breaking the laws.

      Not so. They're lying in their advertisements, and selling a placebo as a drug.

      Fraud is illegal.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    10. Re:Public Disgrace!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Spammers pick the most ... interesting ... mentors:

      An investigation (registration to Salon.com required) last month revealed that Bournival's mentor and business partner is Davis Wolfgang Hawke, a chess expert and former neo-Nazi leader who turned to the spam business in 1999 after it became public that his father was Jewish.

    11. Re:Public Disgrace!! by Fast+Ben · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>Because they are actually delivering the pills, they aren't breaking the laws.

      They may not be breaking any laws selling the stuff, but now that their total sales are public maybe the IRS would be interested?
      Sort of like how they finally got to Al Capone...

    12. Re:Public Disgrace!! by Spunk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hey man, give credit where it's due. The first is called Assassination Politics.

    13. Re:Public Disgrace!! by TopShelf · · Score: 1

      May I suggest we shower him with gifts?

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    14. Re:Public Disgrace!! by Flabby+Boohoo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Excellent information, here is a list of the most notorious spammers.

      Add this guy.

    15. Re:Public Disgrace!! by heli0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The idea is much older than that. It is usually referred to as a 'deadpool'. Usually a list of people and you place wagers on who will be the first to die.

      --
      Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
    16. Re:Public Disgrace!! by nutznboltz · · Score: 1

      You can send mail to Brandon here

      Just fill out the form.

    17. Re:Public Disgrace!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG you not only RTFA, but followed the links. Shame on you. Don't you know the Slashdot posting rules?!?

    18. Re:Public Disgrace!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, they ARE breaking laws, at least here in Washington State. They hijack 3rd party SMTP relays to send the spam. The holdup? Washington State's Attorney General's Office will do NOTHING to enforce their own anti-spam laws. You can collect mountains of evidence for them, enough for a hundred thousand dollars worth of penalties or more, and they're not interested. All they do is send you back a form letter encouraging you to file your own civil suit.

      WA State Residents: 0. Spammers: 2,624,583.

    19. Re:Public Disgrace!! by hellfire · · Score: 1

      Because they are actually delivering the pills, they aren't breaking the laws.

      Actually, knowingly selling pills that do not work as advertised is quite illegal, though it is a lesser crime than not delivering the product and taking your customers money.

      --

      "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    20. Re:Public Disgrace!! by nero4wolfe · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't assume that all, or even "most" spam comes from people missing a check box in a privacy policy. As one example, a year or two ago (in a Seattle area paper iirc), a reporter got interested in signs appearing on telephone poles saying that people with home computers could earn lots of money. So he signed up. The group behind the telephone pole signs supplied him with a list of thousands of email addresses, and a list of web sites that let users sign up for mailing lists without any security checks. He was to get paid a few cents for each email address, per each web site it was added to.

    21. Re:Public Disgrace!! by DdJ · · Score: 1

      Are they allowed to send the mail at all? I don't have much doubt that this is legal in most jurisdictions.

      Are they allowed to forge the "From:" header, though? I'm less sure of that. If they do that and a dialup user downloads the mail message, might that not be a case of wire fraud? Especially if they lie about giving you accurate unsubscribe mechanisms?

    22. Re:Public Disgrace!! by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 1

      Alright, you have now been elected to place a bag of flaming dog shit of his door step every night around midnight, and then ring the door bell. Or, assuming he has a fence, you can simply chuck the bag like a gernade at his front door, the weaker the bag, the better (might also recommend getting the bag wet first).

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    23. Re:Public Disgrace!! by vladkrupin · · Score: 1


      Braden Bournival
      561 Montgomery. St, Manchester, NH 03102
      Tel. #: (603) 669-7422
      Email: frappe_boy@yahoo.com

      Do whatever you want with this info but don't blame ME!!!


      The next thing you know - a bunch of dorks with cameras will start driving up to his front door snapping pictures of his car, getting aerial views of his house, and subscribing him to every promotional material you can get.

      I am more concerned with some poor innocent soul getting their address listed like that on slashdot. Say, I am a boss (I am not, but imagine that for a second), and I fired a person for bad performace. Naturally, they get pissed, go to slashdot and paste my address claiming I am a viagra spammer. Now, a legion of dorks that read slashdot religiously start harrassing me, subscribing me to catalogs, and do all other nasty things, and I don't even have any idea why! Not good...

      --

      Jobs? Which jobs?
    24. Re:Public Disgrace!! by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Because they are actually delivering the pills, they aren't breaking the laws.

      And because the pills are "herbal", the FDA doesn't have anything to say about their effects, or whether they work at all.

    25. Re:Public Disgrace!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and they say americans dont understand irony

      *rotfl*

    26. Re:Public Disgrace!! by Spunk · · Score: 1

      I think the difference is that the purpose of A.P. is the mortal danger of the people on the people on the list.

      Or am I just naive and deadpools are the same way?

    27. Re:Public Disgrace!! by heli0 · · Score: 1

      Deadpools can be either way I suppose. Although most of my knowledge of the subject comes from the Clint Eastwood movie 'Deadpool'.

      --
      Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
  6. Ooh by Sir+Haxalot · · Score: 5, Funny

    What kind of an idiot would buy penis-enlargement pills?
    Meeeeeeeeeee :(

    --
    I have over 70 freaks, do you?
    1. Re:Ooh by zulux · · Score: 1

      What kind of an idiot would buy penis-enlargement pills?

      Meeeeeeeeeee :(


      After the pills:

      Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee :)

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    2. Re:Ooh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pills are for dolts, dunderheads and fools. My proven, doctor tested technique using common household objects (a bowling ball and a length of baling wire) will have your significant other saying "not on your life, pal" within a few short weeks. For further information email:

      president@whitehouse.gov

      Be sure to put "I want an enormous penis" in the subject line. Hundreds of Americans can't be wrong! Don't delay, act today!

  7. who would buy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    an idiot with a small penis

    1. Re:who would buy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or a big idiot with a big penis.

    2. Re:who would buy? by NanoGator · · Score: 5, Funny

      "an idiot with a small penis "

      Aren't you glad Slashdot lets you post anonymously? :)

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    3. Re:who would buy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ohhhhhhhhhhhh. Libertarians you mean.

    4. Re:who would buy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have guns, you know.

    5. Re:who would buy? by makapuf · · Score: 1

      ... so you think.

    6. Re:who would buy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's exactly how I'd expect someone with a ridiculously small penis to respond!

    7. Re:who would buy? by vladkrupin · · Score: 1

      "an idiot with a small penis "

      An idiot with a large penis would do the same - after all, they are offering a HUGE penis, not just a large one! As seen on national TV! Well, I haven't really seen many penises on national TV lately, but the bigger the better, right?

      --

      Jobs? Which jobs?
  8. OMFG LOL by stratjakt · · Score: 0, Funny

    Hey do you guys remember WANG COMPUTERS?

    Hahahahah wang.

    Anyhow, dont be shocked. Look how many GNC stores there are these days. They sell nothing but sugar pills and snake oil.

    But they make billions selling Stacker 2 to fatties too lazy to excersize and too weak willed to stem their eating.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    1. Re:OMFG LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " They sell nothing but sugar pills and snake oil."

      They sell Creatine and Androstene.

      Look at Mark McGuire, he went from a skinny 160lb nobody to a giant 260lb monster leading the league in HR's in just two years by using androstene.

    2. Re:OMFG LOL by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      You forgot about the "constant lifting, proper diet and professional trainer" parts of the equation.

      Causation does not equal correlation. It wasn't the feather that made dumbo fly. Draw your own conclusion about the war on terror (run in the same way and by the same people as the highly successful war on drugs).

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    3. Re:OMFG LOL by kapok_tree · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just incidentally, Wang Computers still exists. They changed their focus from computer manufacture to system solutions. They were under the name of Wang Global, but have since been bought out and are now known as Getronics Wang. And this has resulted in one developer I know, of the name Richard, answering the phone with "Get-a-Wang, this is Dick speaking". They don't let him answer phones anymore. Smart man.

    4. Re:OMFG LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So McGuire did not work out throughout college or for his first 12 years in the pros? Then all of a sudden at age 34, well past his prime, he gains 100 lbs and turns into a giant slugger in under two years? Funny how that didn't occur until he started using Androstene.

    5. Re:OMFG LOL by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      I've worked out for about ten years. I never really got any bigger than I was in high school. Then, a few months ago, I started a new diet that had mariginally more protein. I felt better, so I started going to the gym more. A month later I'd dropped ten pounds and put on a visible amount of muscle. When I ceased the diet (actually cut out meat for a while), I kept seeing gains. It was the increased activity, not just the diet, that caused the results.

      Chemicals or diets or certain exercises are NEVER all it takes to get "big." It's a combination of a huge number of things...and to say just a hormone was all it took is critically simplifying things. It may have helped activate his gains, but he also may have stepped up his weight training because he felt it was working (like with caffeine supplements). He may have been doing things wrong -- I know a LOT of guys (and more girls) at my gym who do things wrong and have for years. They're wasting their money on products like this that will never help them until they learn to lift slower, or more controlled, or with a greater number of reps per set.

      Tell casual exercisers that x and x drug causes you to get big and they'll take the drug and start slacking. Which is the opposite of what you want to do. Steroid users get ungodly huge, but they still have to work out...usually even more heavily. Some programs I've heard of require a minimum of 4 hours of strength training per day to do any good at all, and a massive amount of protein...you can take Sweet Tarts with that much exercise and you'll see a gain. Steroids only help you get bigger than your genetics would normally allow, but chances are you aren't at that peak yet.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    6. Re:OMFG LOL by Benm78 · · Score: 1

      But they make billions selling Stacker 2 to fatties too lazy to excersize and too weak willed to stem their eating. We could enlessly discuss this, but the ingredients of Stack-II and similar supplements have been proven to work in reducing weight. Those experiments were scientific in nature, performed quite well, and without any (extra) exercise. If you're interested, run a PubMed search on something like 'ephedrine caffeine metabolism weight'. You'll find some nice articles published in resonable journals from there. Please don't dismiss any product because it sounds so well. Some of them work, some of them do not.

  9. The problem that just won't go away. by Sheetrock · · Score: 5, Interesting
    My Hotmail account has been filling up regularly with spam like this for years, and I always wondered not only who the hell would buy something like this from someone they didn't know but also why people who are dumping hundreds of thousands of messages an hour through a network aren't having their connections terminated. You know the drill; everybody's got an abuse policy, but apparently abuse@whatever.com is routed to the Recycle Bin.

    Despite my vehement loathing of spam, a recent incident is making me question how we go about dealing with it. Recently, Something Awful has been having issues with the SPEWS list, a popular spam blacklister, who according to Something Awful blacklisted a whole chunk of IP addresses that happened to include their own unabused server without offering recourse or explanation simply because it had the misfortune of sharing address space unknowingly and unwillingly. I'd call that overkill, and more offensive than the perceived problem of spam itself if truth be told. Bayesian filters work, so why do we need to continue inadvertently censoring netizens who have nothing to do with spamming?

    I tell you, folks, after reading this article and hearing about what anti-spam proponents have come up with for solutions, I'm starting to have second thoughts about the whole deal. For me it comes down to to the freedom of speech issue -- I've always been told that if you can't handle free speech you don't agree with you obviously can't handle free speech -- and I suppose just because something irritates me doesn't mean that the greater good would be served by silencing that something.

    Another perspective is that the amount of money being pumped back into the economy by so-called unsolicited commercial e-mail is nothing to scoff at, and perhaps legislating it in some tolerable form such as limiting a company to one commercial message per person per day would create a new legitimate business method in this country. It's something to think about, certainly. I'd hate to think we're going to lose another revenue stream to outsourcing before we've even had a chance to give it a go locally, and this may be a way for us to recapture some of those IT jobs that have been lost and generate a whole new crop of successful entrepeneurships.

    --

    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




    1. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by MImeKillEr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For me it comes down to to the freedom of speech issue -- I've always been told that if you can't handle free speech you don't agree with you obviously can't handle free speech -- and I suppose just because something irritates me doesn't mean that the greater good would be served by silencing that something.


      Admittedly, I didn't RTFA.. But, as someone who is vehement about free speech myself I can tell you that I don't consider SPAM as free speech. It's not free speech if you have no way to avoid it. Sure, if I don't like what someone's saying on TV, I can change the channel. I don't have the option of 'changing the channel' on a spammer.

      I agree, everyone should have the right to speak their mind, no matter how unpopular or controversial. However, no one has the right to force anyone else to read, listen to, or otherwise hold captive an audience - and thats exactly what spammers are doing.

      And don't tell me I can simply hit the delete button - thats not something I should have to do. Just like if someone's making harassing phonecalls to me, I can call the police and press charges. There needs to be a similar mechanism for SPAM, preferrably something involving rope, stakes, honey and a mound of Texas fireants.

      --
      Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
    2. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by mhore · · Score: 2, Funny
      Despite my vehement loathing of spam, a recent incident is making me question how we go about dealing with it.

      Execute the spammers? :-)

      --

      Mmmm......sacrelicious.

    3. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      the amount of money being pumped back into the economy by so-called unsolicited commercial e-mail is nothing to scoff at

      This is just plain stupid. Spam is largely supported by wasting other company's money. Waste is not good for the economy. Period.

      --
      me

    4. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by WNight · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First, the "money pumped back into the economy" statement. You think that the customers would have burnt that, or put it in their matress if they hadn't bought swedish-made penis pumps? I doubt it. They'd have bought the next product advertised on the shopping network, or sold at the checkout at Walmart.

      Second, the "free speech" issue. If you lie to my employees to get them to stamp your mail with my bulk-mailing code it's not free speech, it's fraud. I won't shut you down because of what your mail says, but because you want me to foot the bill for it. Also, your right to free speech doesn't obligate me to listen. If you have to lie about the subject and sender to get people to listen, it's likely they don't want to hear you.

    5. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by heli0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      SA uses CogentCo to host their servers. CogentCo is a cesspool of spammers. Anyone that does business with CogentCo deserves to have all of their email blocked by every router on the internet. The fact that CogentCo allows spammers to operate freely on their network and does ZERO to stop them is reason enough to blacklist CogentCo. SPEW has blacklisted thousands of spammers hosted at CogentCo, some of them dozens of times using different IPs. CogentCo gives these spammers new IPs every time. The only way to combat this is to blacklist CogentCo's entire block.

      "For me it comes down to to the freedom of speech issue -"
      You can say whatever the fuck you want, but not in a manner in which I have to pay for it.

      --
      Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
    6. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by salmacis2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sorry, Sheetrock, you're completely wrong with your solution to spam. It's not a freedom of speech issue any more than shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre is a freedom of speech issue. How about the freedom to not have to listen? If you were to restrict each spmmer to one spam per person per day, you'd still end up with an inbox full of spam. There are 6 billion people on this planet. If only a 1000 of them were spammers - that's still 1000 items of spam a day.

      The Bayesian filter is only a stopgap as well. The spam still gets sent, clogging up mail servers and a whole load of bandwidth. The only long term solution is to stop spam at source, and I don't really have an answer how to do that.

      There are a few suggestions:
      1) Dump SMTP. Replace it with a secure version that doesn't allow spammers to hide behind an anonymous address.
      2) Make spamming illegal, punishable by large fines, and *enforce it*
      3) Authorities need to recognise spam as a seriousproblem and deal with it. If someone sent out a destructive virus, it would take the FBI about 2 days to track them down. The same approach needs to be taken with spam.
      4) Make it an offence to *buy* from a spammer. Call it an accessory to a crime, or something.

    7. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by ebh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your right to free speech does not obligate me, as a private citizen, to provide you a forum in which to exercise that right.

      Thus, a spammer's free speech rights have no bearing on my inbox.

    8. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by __aanonl8035 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My company was also in an IP range that
      was blocked by SPEWS because of another
      companies actions in the same class C
      IP range.

      This problem is really with the way SPEWS
      operates. Other blackhole lists are much
      more reasonable and only block by an IP
      per IP basis.

      The problem is exacerbated by the fact
      that administrators just og out to
      places like orisoft and subscribe to
      every blackhole list that exists without
      reading about how the blackhole lists
      are made.

    9. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's not free speech if you have no way to avoid it.

      1. Don't use the Internet.

      2. Use the Internet, but don't receive e-mail.

      3. Receive e-mail, but only from certain addresses (i.e. whitelisting).

      4. Receive e-mail, but only from servers that aren't listed in SPEWS or whatever (blacklisting).

      5. Receive e-mail from anyone, but make them click a link or something to verify that they're real human beings and not spammers (self-whitelisting).

      6. Receive all e-mail, but programmatically filter out spam (using e.g. Bayesian
      statistical analysis).

      7. Just delete spam when you receive it. I use this strategy on my account at home, and now that I'm over the initial outrage, it costs me less than a minute a day. Plus I got these great penis enlargement pills. They really work.

      8. If you're a programmer, write an e-mail system that spammers can't abuse. People might like something like that. I bet they'd use it.

      You have a very wide range of options. The fact that spammers are subhuman lowlifes doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to think before you say X form of communication "isn't speech".

    10. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evidently, someone has been reading and following this...

    11. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by jcr · · Score: 1

      For me it comes down to to the freedom of speech issue

      Not that same bloody canard again!

      Spamming is NOT and has NEVER been a freedom of speech issue. It is a PROPERTY RIGHTS issue.

      A spammer can say whatever the hell he wants, but that does not grant him a right to use OTHER people's equipment to do so.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    12. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      "I'm starting to have second thoughts about the whole deal. For me it comes down to to the freedom of speech issue -- I've always been told that if you can't handle free speech you don't agree with you obviously can't handle free speech"

      How exactly is stealing my bandwidth and filling up my disk quota a free speech issue? For me personally, this is about denial/theft of service. My issue isn't with spam in the advertising sense. I don't mind hearing about new products that I have an interest in and opt in to see. It's when people start stealing my resources in order to send me junk I don't want or need that I take issue. It costs me in the end.

      All of this fancy legislation is a crock of shit. And I agree with you. The legislation makes it a freedom of speech issue, when in fact it should not be. All they need to do is make spam opt-in, and all will be well. Spam merchants have the most to lose from this, as legitimate businesses will thrive on the opt-in model, whereas smut peddlers will be left out in the cold as no one really wants or needs penile enhancers(not from an online merchant anyway).

    13. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But the problem is nobody has a good way to stop the spam without hurting innocent parties in the process. This is what the somethingawful anecdote was about. Regardless of whether you think it is right to ban spam, it is still wrong to ban people whose only crime is having an IP address in the same block as a spammer's address.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    14. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by Alizarin+Erythrosin · · Score: 2, Informative

      Bayesian filters [python.net] work

      Ok, first of all, I do agree... they work pretty well given the content.

      But, here's my problem. It involves my parents. Their email address gets lots of spam. They are on a dialup connection. The problem is, if I set them up with some kind of bayesian filtering (or even other spam filtering) they still must download all the spam in order for it to be filtered. Most people don't run their own mail servers and can't install a server-side filtering program. Mail hosts and ISPs don't want to filter email (in most cases) because of the fear of losing somebody's important email and being sued. It just seems like something else needs to be done, like options to filter mail more stringently (i.e. Bayesian filtering).

      --
      There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
    15. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      I think it is a mistake to disallow anonymity, since there are perfectly legitimate reasons for wanting it. What there should be, however, is a means by which *if* there is a need for legal action, the person could be tracked down, but their personal information isn't necessarily visible (unless they want it to be) without the equivilent of a search warrant. So, in other words, they can be anonymous until they do something where there is a legal need to find out who they are, and then they can't. (So, somewhere their personal data is on record, but it's not released to just everyone who asks.)

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    16. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by Frater+219 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Recently, Something Awful has been having issues with the SPEWS list, a popular spam blacklister, who according to Something Awful blacklisted a whole chunk of IP addresses that happened to include their own unabused server without offering recourse or explanation simply because it had the misfortune of sharing address space unknowingly and unwillingly.

      And what did the administrators of SomethingAwful do? Did they contact their ISP, whose support of spammers led to its netblocks being boycotted far and wide by other networks and mail server operators? No. Instead, they posted a solicitation for their own users (the "SA Forum Goons") to attempt to obtain the personal information of the operators of SPEWS, for the purposes of signing said operators up on spam mailing lists. They also instructed the goons to flood a spam-related USENET newsgroup with crude messages -- which was done.

      In short, SomethingAwful's operators specifically encouraged criminal activities and abuse of the network. Reportedly, readers of the flooded USENET group did the right thing in response -- rather than counterattacking with a flood of their own, they reported the criminal activity to the offending user's sites (including universities). At least some of the offenders' accounts were terminated for their criminal activity. The undergrads who thought they were clever to post "fuck you goatse spam whores" a bazillion times from their university accounts won't think they are so clever when they are brought up on disciplinary charges for malicious use of university resources.

      SomethingAwful deserves no sympathy. In response to a legal boycott of their ISP's network -- stemming from their ISP's willful continuing to host egregious spammers -- the owners and operators of SomethingAwful committed and advocated criminal acts. Their actions are criminal no less than the spammers' themselves.

    17. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by Alizarin+Erythrosin · · Score: 1

      SPAM is a lunchmeat, not free speech. But then again, the spam issue isn't about free speech either, just as you say.

      --
      There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
    18. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by Burpmaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let's make a deal. You give me a dollar, then I give you a dollar (a different one!) and then we will have just boosted the economy by $2, at least by your understanding.

      This is not how things work at all. Workers are only good for what they produce. Employing people for the sake of employing them serves no purpose; they might as well receive welfare.

      In fact, in the case of spam (and telemarketers), all they produce is a drain on the economy. We'd be better off if those fraudulent companies were all eliminated and their employees started getting welfare equal to their previous wages. At least then, they wouldn't be wasting people's time.

    19. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong with waiting 30 seconds or a minute to download a bunch spam, as long as you don't have to see it ?

      If the $400 supermarket computers were shipped pre-configured like that, then a significant portion of the 6,000 people would not have seen the spam and not bought it. Enough to drive the spammer out of business ? Probably not, given he's working a huge margin. But it's a start, and it doesn't involve fucking with MY ability to send mail as a private, non spamming person running their own mailserver.

    20. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      The thing is that its not really a free speech issue so much.

      It could be a free speech issue. See here is the thing, you have the right to say whatever you want. You do not have the right to force me, or anyone else, to listen to you.

      So if a spammer wants to pay some money, get a good net connection, and start spamming the world, nobody is going to care. Why?

      Because simply anyone who doesn't want his spew can black list him by ip and the spam goes away for anyone who doesn't wish it, and anyone who wants his spew can still have it.

      Spammers know this... so they don't do it. They purposefully jump around from ip to ip, they look for open relays to abuse, they do whatever they can to activly avoid any attempts to filter them

      Even baysean filtering, look how now they put html comments and weird punctuation in the middle of words to try (sometimes, but not usually successfully) to get around peoples personal filters. (as beaysean filtering is only seldom done on a system wide basis).

      This is the behaviour thats so offensive. They find an open relay and the abuse the hell out of it till everybody in the world blacklists it, and they shove so much crap through it that its useless to the legitimate users of the relay.

      They forge return addresses, so mail gets stuck in mail queues and fills disk for days on end until the bounces expire. All in all they are a nuisence.

      AGain, if they played by the simple rules and got themselves legitimate mail servers and sent their mail just like everyone else... then nobody would have a problem with them. People who didn't want to hear their spew could ignore their spew. People who didn't care, could still see it. No problem.

      Now when it comes to it, I run my own mail servers and I do things right by free speech standards. I impliment greylisting, so maiul can certainly get in by anyone with a legitimate mail server. Then I apply a baysean filter to everything that just tags...and I let the users individually decide whether they want to filter on that tag or not.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    21. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by ocelotbob · · Score: 1

      No, blanket blacklisting without impunity isn't the only way to handle a situation with a company such as CogentCo. I've read both sides here, and the unresponsive, holier-than-thou assholes who run SPEWS are doing the anti-spam side more harm than good by clinging to the notion that a scortched earth campaign is the only way to fight the spam war. For example, what's so hard about allowing folks in a blacklisted netblock to send an afadavit stating that they will not spam from their alotted IP addresses, and to notify SPEWS if their IP block changes? There are solutions here, solutions which don't require indiscriminate usage of netblocks

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

    22. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But, as someone who is vehement about free speech myself I can tell you that I don't consider SPAM as free speech. It's not free speech if you have no way to avoid it."

      But there are. Many ways. Don't receive email is the simplist. You don't have to listen. This isn't the same as with telemarketers, where the telco gives you (at least in my state) no free way of getting added lines or switching numbers or not having you listed (basically, they sell your number), etc. Telemarketing is like your email ISP selling your email address.

      spam doesn't work that way. spam is successful because of how email is handled, plain and simple. You can blame the spammers, but while I think what they do is abusive, annoying, and a pain in the ass, I also think it's legal and protected speech.

      For you, you simply have to sign up to an internet provider that doesn't receive spam. Now, that sounds impossible, and practically is, but the ISP does NOT have to accept mail or accept mail from a spam source. That's the way email works--it's an agreement by protocol and routing that an email machine does or does not accept mail... ...which is often why blacklists work against spam and hinder innocent sites as well. Just as there is no recourse for the person being spammed, there is no recourse if, as a sender of legitimate, solicited email, an intended email recipient may have been blacklisted somewhere on their end or simply not have an address to send to.

      Look, I have an email address I've had for over 6 years. No spam. I only use it in a closed ring and for certain purposes. All the address where I receive spam, I've made available publicly--by usenet postings, posts to mailing lists like bugtraq, domain registrations, or buying online. I expected spam to get to me on those, and they have (although, one took nearly 4 years before I got my first message).

    23. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by Have+Blue · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When we're talking about Napster or Kazaa a miniscule percentage of legal use is sufficient to argue that the entire network should be preserved, but when we're talking about spam blocks we're just supposed to ignore the legal use and go on with the jihad? You can't have it both ways.

    24. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by AVee · · Score: 1

      For me it comes down to to the freedom of speech issue -- I've always been told that if you can't handle free speech you don't agree with you obviously can't handle free speech -- and I suppose just because something irritates me doesn't mean that the greater good would be served by silencing that something.

      Ammazing how people keep confusing free speech with 'YOU HAVE GOT TO LISTEN TO ME'. Yes, any spammer is free to say what he/she wants, on his/her own website. I'll check it when i want to listen.
      Do you read at -1?

    25. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by Axynter · · Score: 1

      "For me it comes down to to the freedom of speech issue -- I've always been told that if you can't handle free speech you don't agree with you obviously can't handle free speech -- and I suppose just because something irritates me doesn't mean that the greater good would be served by silencing that something."

      Freedom of speech is a right up until it infringes on the rights of others... There is no such thing as a universal, permanent right, not even life.

      Before you jump up and down and scream and shout, think a bit about it...

    26. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by carlos_benj · · Score: 1

      8. If you're a programmer, write an e-mail system that spammers can't abuse. People might like something like that. I bet they'd use it.

      Hey, yeah! Then I could write another program to harvest email addresses from the net and send everyone an email to tell them about my great new email program! I'm just a few steps from financial freedom now!!!!!

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

    27. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      People use DNSBLs like SPEWS and the various open relay lists because they work. If anything, the open relays lists block more legitimate senders than SPEWS. However, anyone using DNSBLs to block mail server should have some plan for whitelisting senders. In sendmail it's as easy as adding a line to /etc/mail/access:

      somethingawful.com OK

    28. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by drooling-dog · · Score: 1
      You can't have it both ways.

      Bad analogy. In one case you're talking about about users voluntarily screening access to their own inboxes using a third-party service, and in the other you have a service denied to users that want it whether or not its use would be illegal.

    29. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by MImeKillEr · · Score: 1

      Re-read what I said.

      I never said X form of communication "isn't speech"

      I said free speech.

      --
      Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
    30. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by zulux · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with waiting 30 seconds or a minute to download a bunch spam, as long as you don't have to see it ?


      Client-side spam filtering sucks if you have an expensive internet connection:

      ATT GPRS charges me $.0008 per kilo-byte
      Iridium charges me $1.50 bet minuite at 9600 baud

      and some 56K european ISP don't offer the tryical $20 all you can use connections we Americans have gotten used to.

      (side note: pair.com has built in spamassassin filtering you can activate. And FreeBSD servers - highly recomended)

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    31. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by 2short · · Score: 2, Informative

      "What's wrong with waiting 30 seconds or a minute to download a bunch spam, as long as you don't have to see it ?"

      The same thing that is wrong with waiting 3 seconds, 3 hours, or 3 days. It is my time, it is my money paying for the bandwidth. They are forcing me to pay to receive things I don't want. And with your 30sec-1min estimate you're also falling for the fallacy of assuming your spam volume is everyones. If I were on a slow dialup, spam would make it unusable.

      Imagine the highway you drove to work on became a toll road. At the toll booth, you have to pay a quarter. This money is used to pay not for the road, but for a whole ton of leaflets advertising things you don't want, which are available at the toll booth. Would you be satisfied if the toll booth operator explained "Well it's only a quarter, and you don't have to take any leaflets, what's the problem"

    32. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      holier-than-thou assholes who run SPEWS

      Been in touch with them recently, have you? Funny, no one else has.

    33. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      Something Awful has been having issues with the SPEWS list, a popular spam blacklister, who according to Something Awful blacklisted a whole chunk of IP addresses that happened to include their own unabused server without offering recourse or explanation simply because it had the misfortune of sharing address space unknowingly and unwillingly

      This is inaccurate. Somethingawful has three easy means of escaping the blacklisting.

      They can move to an ISP who isn't spam-friendly.
      They can convince cogentco to get rid of their spammers.
      They can route their mail through a smarthost.

      The purpose of SPEWS is to list spam-friendly ISPs. SPEWS is doing this. It is not the purpose of SPEWS to help clients of spam-friendly ISPs to deal with the fallout of being on a network from which no one wants to accept packets.

    34. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by AndroidCat · · Score: 3, Informative
      This problem is really with the way SPEWS operates. Other blackhole lists are much more reasonable and only block by an IP per IP basis.

      It was tried. It failed. Spam-supporting ISPs would swap the spammers to another IP block, and swap a legit client in and ask for it to be unblocked. This game of whack-a-mole went on for years. SPEWS does start blocking a single IP or small range. Only when the ISP doesn't do anything about it do they expand it.

      SPEWS is certainly not a perfect solution, but it seem to be one of the only ones that will eventually make an ISP sit up and take notice. Ask them why it took so long.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    35. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by nero4wolfe · · Score: 1

      A limit on the number of unsolicited msgs per day also won't work. If you think about the total number of companies in the world & the costs to the sender of email, if sending spam became "acceptable", you could easily expect to receive hundreds to thousands of spam msgs a day. As soon as a gang member found your address and added it to lists, you'd start receiving broadcasts from the entire world. Unless you got off the lists (the electronic equivalent of a "No Solicitors" sign), your email address would become unusable quickly.

    36. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that it's not the only way, but I totally disagree that SPEWS is doing any harm. Blaming SPEWS makes about as much sense as blaming the manufacturer of my mail server hardware.

      SPEWS acknowledges that the spam problem includes non-spammers who pay money to ISPs, even when they know that those ISPs refuse to boot spammers, and maintains some data regarding those spammers and their ISPs - nothing more.

      I can voluntarily use that data to refuse email from those who are responsible for spam if I wish. Those responsible include the spammers, their ISPs, and the spammer's neighbors who support their ISPs. If you disagree with that philosophy, nobody is forcing you to reject email from anyone. SPEWS is not hurting you or anyone else. Those who choose to reject email from spam supporters by making voluntary use of SPEWS resources are. Feel free to blame me when the mail servers that I'm responsible for refuse inbound email from your ISP's mail servers, but don't blame SPEWS.

    37. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by zangdesign · · Score: 1

      But with most objectionable speech, I don't have to pay to listen to it. SPAM costs me money - a small percentage of my monthly cablemodem bill pays for them to transmit that spam to my inbox.

      And I'm going to begrudge them every 1/10th of 1 percent that I can because they have no right to it.

      If spam was delivered as a "sender-pays" option, rather than sucking money out my pocket as well, then it would just be obnoxious, as opposed to now, where it borders on (or crosses into) theft.

      --
      To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
    38. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      Forgot my other point: Admins can chose to use SPEWS or other "block-lists" anyway they want. They can block. They can filter it out. They can tag'n'bag it as spam and let the user decide what to do with it. One problem with filtering or t'n'b is that a false positive won't generate a bounce to let the sender know that their email didn't go through.

      I guarantee that for every block-list bounce there are far more that are silently eaten.

      My own preference is to let the users be able to set their options, and a number of ISPs do this. SPEWS is bouncing email that a user wants? Let him switch it off on his email box.

      And no admin should blindly use any system without monitoring it. A number monitor SPEWS very carefully.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    39. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by Tackhead · · Score: 2, Interesting
      > No, blanket blacklisting without impunity isn't the only way to handle a situation with a company such as CogentCo. I've read both sides here, and the unresponsive, holier-than-thou assholes who run SPEWS are doing the anti-spam side more harm than good by clinging to the notion that a scortched earth campaign is the only way to fight the spam war. For example, what's so hard about allowing folks in a blacklisted netblock to send an afadavit stating that they will not spam from their alotted IP addresses, and to notify SPEWS if their IP block changes? There are solutions here, solutions which don't require indiscriminate usage of netblocks

      No, blanket proxy abuse with imputiny isn't the only way to run an ISP such as CogentCo. I've read both sides here, and the unresponsive, holier-than-thou assholes who run the (nonexistent) abuse desks at CogentCo, rr.com, attbi.com, and all of South America are doing the residential broadband side more harm than good by clinging to the notion that a scorched-earth campaign is the only way to stay in business.

      For example, what's so hard about an ISP blocking outbound port 25 except for customers clueful enough to smarthost, or to sign an affadavit stating they will not spam nor run an open proxy from their alotted IP addresses, and to staff the ISP's abuse desk so that SPEWS doesn't have to block the whole goddamn /24.

      There are solutions here, solutions which don't require the indiscriminate blocking of netblocks.

      But until the fucking residential broadband providers wake the fuck up and use them, I'm blocking 200.0.0.0/7, 202.0.0.0/8, 12.0.0.0/8, 24.0.0.0/8, and any CogentCo and Comcast netblocks in 66.0.0.0/8 I can find at the /16 level.

      Broadband? Residential? Get the fuck off the 'net. I don't wanna talk to you no mo.

    40. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      I have a certain amount of sympathy, but they were going after the wrong target. And that target isn't SPEWS and certainly isn't NANAE (which isn't SPEWS darnit!). I'd say that it's their ISP.

      And it certainly wasn't flood. $cientology and dipslime were floods. This was barely damp.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    41. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1
      A guy comes into your house and kill your wife and childeren for $100 bucks wich he uses to feed his childeren. Is it now unfair to send him to jail because that will hurt his childeren?

      Of course my example is extreme. But the fact is that people are often affected by the punishment aimed at someone else. If every time the a lawmaker had to take care that noone but the reciptient of the punishment was hurt by the punishment then their would be no punishment.

      Their are plently of respectable ISP's around who do a lot of hard work to ensure that no spammers use their network. Sure they may be more expensive. That is because they spend that extra money guarding their and your intrests.

      If a ISP deal sounds to good to be true then it probably is. I myself maintain several servers that are on blacklists. We have chosen to accept the blacklist on email since their rates are much cheaper. We simply pay for an other server from wich we do the email.

      Spam is a problem and people have choosen to fight back by blocking mail from certain points.

      If you are right then you MUST answer each and every telephone call you receive, after all by not answering the phone you are limiting the otherones right to freely communicate with you.

      --

      MMO Quests are like orgasms:

      You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    42. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by abhisarda · · Score: 1

      I agree with the parent post. I went to google groups and did this search. Browse though. Cogentco is not having trouble with spews for the first time. Take a look at this quote-
      "Looks to me like they are still providing spam support service and are
      going to a lot of trouble to ensure their spammer has no down time.
      How spam friendly is that?"

      Something Awful's to blame for staying with spam friendly CogentCo.

    43. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by gellenburg · · Score: 1

      To take your point even further, there is absolutely no free speech rights guaranteed in the constitution that any person or organization must grant another.

      The First Amendement simply states that the *Government* can't limit your speech.

    44. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by Cheffo+Jeffo · · Score: 1

      "Of course my example is extreme"

      It's not only extreme ... it's off-the-mark.

      The analogy is that your neighbour kills his wife and kids and *you* go to jail because you live next door to a maniac, even though you never even met the freak.

      Almost sounds like *Soviet Russia* ...

      Cheers,

      JAKD

    45. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by Sim9 · · Score: 1

      Having had experience with cogent, I completely agree and sympathize with this. I am not a spammer, and I shouldn't be treated like one.

      If my house is next to a criminal's, should *I* be on trial?

    46. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by crapulent · · Score: 1

      Stop apologizing for spam.

      - The Supreme Court has made it blatantly apparent that no one should be forced to pay for someone else's commerical speech. See the Compuserve v Cyper Promotions ruling. In other words, your right to free speech ends at my door, I am in no way obliged to pay for you to advertise to me.

      - SPEWS works exactly because it puts pressure on innocent third parties. Other methods have been tried and found not to work. The only way to stamp out spam is to make sure that ISPs will not tolerate spam in the slightest, and SPEWS is remarkably effective at this. As an analogy, if you lived in an apartment unit above a crackhouse in a bad part of town, you can't blame the Domino's driver for refusing to deliver there, given that he's been mugged at gunpoint before. Likewise, SPEWS represents the common emotions of the ISPs that choose to use it. By blocking mail brom SPEWS-listed netblocks they are saying, "This is our equipment and our rules, and we refuse to have anything to do with an ISP that supports spam." Remember, SPEWS doesn't block anything, they just publish a list of netblocks of people who spam or provide spam support. An added benefit is that truly innocent third parties are encouraged to either give their dirty landlord so much shit that they clean up, or they move to an ISP with a hat color that's not a few shades up from a black hole.

      - Client side filtering (like your Bayes example) is effective but it will not do anything to solve the problem. Once the message has been accepted, that's it. The resouces are already wasted -- bandwidth spent, disk space used, user's modem BW occupied downloading it. Filtering is an automated means of "JHD" or "Just Hit Delete" which at its core is admitting defeat. Contrariwise, blacklists such as SPEWS that work -before- message delivery (ie at the connection level or during RCPT TO/MAIL FROM commands before the DATA phase) can cause those resources to not be wasted, and to cause some actual grief to the spammer. The spammer knows that most of his crap will be deleted but he doesn't care because it will always get through to a few. However, if all of his open-proxyies were suddenly rejected by every mailserver, he'd be unable to send anything and it would actually hurt his bottom line.

      Spam is a big enough problem that no one should be apologizing for the spammers.

    47. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by ChuckleBug · · Score: 1

      And don't tell me I can simply hit the delete button - thats not something I should have to do. Just like if someone's making harassing phonecalls to me, I can call the police and press charges. There needs to be a similar mechanism for SPAM, preferrably something involving rope, stakes, honey and a mound of Texas fireants.

      The "quit whining - just hit delete" crowd drives me nuts. It's like saying "quit complaining - just clean the egg off your windshield." There are several reasons "just hit delete" is an ass:

      1 - As you said, "WTF should I have to do this?"
      2 - Why must I be subjected to "h0tt chikz with dikz" crap every day while just trying to mind my own business? Even if I "just hit delete" I've still had that crap shoved in my face. I'm not easily offended, but that neverending barrage of bestiality, incest, rape, and so on gets very, very tiresome.
      3 - It doesn't address the problem. Even if you jhd, the bandwidth and server space has already been wasted. (This is also a problem with bayesian filters. Their only benefit is relieving your eyes of that garbage.)
      4 - When you've been on the net, using the same email address for a long time as I have, you tend to have more spam problems. I had my email address on my web page and used it on Usenet before the dangers became apparent. So I get from 90 to 255 spams per day. All those deletes add up to a LOT of wasted time. Somehow I don't think the jhd people would feel the same way if they had to deal with large volumes.
      5 - Spammers advertize for free, on OUR dime. That alone should qualify them as targets for air strikes.
      6 - All that shee-yot slows mail servers and makes going away from your email for an extended period a huge pain in the ass.

      What we need is a system whereby spam goes only to those who tell others to "just hit delete." They obviously want to passively accept abuse, so let them do it and leave the rest of us alone.

    48. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by Cheffo+Jeffo · · Score: 1

      "talking about about users voluntarily screening access to their own inboxes using a third-party service"

      If this were the case, then it wouldn't be such a problem and it would be relegated to a mostly theoretical argument.

      The truth is that most users who are having their e-mail filtered in this way, have no idea about it and never agreed to it. Their ISP or e-mail providers just use the SPEWS list without ever telling the end user or ever even validating that list.

      And because SPEWS is a private list made public for "educational purposes" and the creators are anonymous, there is no way to protect the innocent unless the almighty SPEWSlords decide it is so ... and they haven't.

      The analogy is right on target -- we'll vehemently defend the rights of the .001% of non-infriging users of Kazaa and we're all too happy to see an entire /16 banned because a spammer has a couple of IPs in that /16.

      The rights of the innocent individual either matter or they don't ... pick one ... then hope that you're never the innocent in question.

      Cheers,

      JAKD

    49. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by ocelotbob · · Score: 1

      Once again, what's so hard about whitelisting good persons in "bad" netblocks that have promised, under threat of lawsuit, to be a good netizen? Or does admitting that it's possible to have a good person in a bad network neighborhood somehow destroy the war on spam? If it's possible to blacklist, then it's possible to whitelist, unless of course the owner of the list is a zealot, in which case all bets are off.

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

    50. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by Man_Holmes · · Score: 1

      So spam is protected by free speech? Send me your phone number and I will send you 700 junk faxes a day.

      That's how many SPAM messages I receive in an average day. That's not free speech it's pollution.

      Course there's a law against sending junk faxes and they've pretty much disappeared.

      If our legislators used email and had to deal with 700 SPAM messages a day how long do you think before we'd have a law?

      Before you make the argument that the spammers would all move off shore consider this: How many junk faxes do you receive?

      With internet phone calls nearly as cheap as email it can't cost much more to send junk faxes via the net yet it doesn't happen. Because they're hunted down and prosecuted that's why.

      Man Holmes

    51. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 1

      For me it comes down to to the freedom of speech issue


      If SPAM is "free speech," then being forcibly gang-raped is "making love."

    52. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For me it comes down to to the freedom of speech issue -- I've always been told that if you can't handle free speech you don't agree with you obviously can't handle free speech --

      Get a fscking clue loser. There is NOTHING about "spam" that in any way shape or form can be considered "free speech". I am the unwitting receipient/buyer of what you are selling/advertising".
      If you stood on a street corner pedalling your goods I have a choice to listen or not. If you send me so-called junk snail mail at least you bought the paper and postage but when you use my time/connection/bandwidth/server space to store your drivel then the notion of "free speech" goes down the drain. Now we have different opinions of what free is.... Yes it is free speech when you can send 1 billion e-mail messages for next to nothing; I am forced to free up some time to delete whatever the hell you are selling. Free speech has NOTHING/NADA/ZILCH to do with e-mail which has become a receiver pays to see your "free" speech issue. I don't have a choice.
      You at least have a choice you can send it at a cost to you or you can put a cork in your big mouth and respect others's time/effort.

    53. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by vladkrupin · · Score: 1

      For me it comes down to to the freedom of speech issue -- I've always been told that if you can't handle free speech you don't agree with you obviously can't handle free speech -- and I suppose just because something irritates me doesn't mean that the greater good would be served by silencing that something.


      If I keep excercising my right to free speech on a girl next door who can't stand me, she'll call the cops and get a restraining order on me. Did my free speech right get trampled on? Maybe. But not before I trampled on her right not to be annoyed.

      I am not attacking you personally, by any means. In fact, I mostly agree with you. It's just when I see the phrase "free speech" a few words away from word "SPAM", it triggers something inside me. Twisting the notion of free speech to support SPAM is just rather sad...

      In other words, if SPEWS is too eager to blacklist the whole universe, it's their problem and they have to fix it. It is not a perfect world and bad things happen. False positives are much worse than the SPAM they let through. The more false positives SPEWS allows, the lower their value will be. If this value drops close to zero, then nobody will use them. Until they provide value (albeit, with some false positives), people will use them. It's that simple, and has nothing to do with free speech.

      --

      Jobs? Which jobs?
    54. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by vladkrupin · · Score: 1


      Your right to free speech does not obligate me, as a private citizen, to provide you a forum in which to exercise that right.

      Thus, a spammer's free speech rights have no bearing on my inbox.


      While that sounds cool, and stuff, I'd have to disagree. You are not obligated by any means, and neither do you provide a forum. The free speech laws have nothing to do with that, but solicitation laws do. Thus, a spammers free speech is irrelevant regardless of you being a private citizen, or whatever you want to be.

      --

      Jobs? Which jobs?
    55. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by rew · · Score: 1

      Freedom of speach is intended to allow you to voice your opinion. Things like "that Bush guy is crazy for getting our country involved in the mess in the middle east". If that's your opinion, you should be able to say so.

      People are applying the "free speach" thingy to unintended messages like: "Buy stuff from me". That's not what free speach was meant for.

    56. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Execute the spammers? :-)

      Why the smile?

    57. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I too don't find spam as painful as the media makes it sound. You have to wonder about the level of anger people have. I think for consumers the problem may be bandwidth - if you download over dialup, you may resent the wasted time for spam. How many people here still use dialup?

      The other complaint, if you HAVE spam blocking software, is false positives - lost legitimate email.

      The real complaint comes from ISP's. Spam must add significantly to their server and bandwidth load. AOL said they blocked a billion messages in one day?? Thats a lot of processing, or storage, and modem use, if they DON'T block it. Of course, the figure could be bogus - if they have 25 million subscribers, that would be an AVERAGE of 40 spam messages for each subscriber! A little hard to believe.

      I worked for Time-Warner for many years, and after the merger with AOL, they gave us all AOL accounts, and tried to migrate us all to AOL mail as the corporate standard - and I do know that our spam level increased a lot.

    58. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by Erik+Fish · · Score: 1

      You can't get pizzas delivered to your apartment because the landlord allows gangbangers to hang out around the entrance of the building and rob all the delivery guys. Should you threaten to sue the restaraunt employees who won't take your orders? Should you then send all the 12 year old boys in the neighborhood out to scribble nasty messages on the walls of all the pizza places that won't deliver to you?

      Where exactly do you think this will get you?

    59. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thought of executing spammers makes me smile. You got a problem with that?

    60. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by Pete · · Score: 1
      ocelotbob:

      Once again, what's so hard about whitelisting good persons in "bad" netblocks that have promised, under threat of lawsuit, to be a good netizen? Or does admitting that it's possible to have a good person in a bad network neighborhood somehow destroy the war on spam?

      Hi, ocelotbob. Okay, quick response to the first bit - the "under threat of lawsuit" bit is just completely useless and impractical. There's no way in hell that SPEWS would be able to keep track of who you are and if you're permanently the owner of that particular IP address. There's no practical way they'd be able to verify your name and identity. There's no way they'd be able to organise a legally binding contract with you (such that they really could base a lawsuit on it in the case of you violating it) without revealing their identity - and they're anonymous specifically so they don't have to worry about time-wasting lawsuits against them. There's no way they could afford the time and resources to undertake such a lawsuit when there's virtually zero chance they'd even make their monetary costs back. And finally - there's absolutely no concrete benefit to them in doing it. What would they get out of it? PR? They don't care about PR. The unending gratefulness of people like you? While that might be nice, it wouldn't come close to paying for even ten seconds of their time - and to practically implement something as you describe above (even if it were possible), would take days (at least) for each person involved.

      Okay, I hope that quick response has explained why the "under threat of lawsuit" approach is meaningless. So we come down to... um... maintaining holes (in their lists) for good people in bad netblocks who promise to stay good and not spam or otherwise abuse the net... but with no real way of penalising those people if they lie.

      You ask, essentially, "what's so hard about this?" Well, you may not have realised this, but it's virtually certain that your ISP can move you onto a different IP address whenever they feel like it. And you'd have absolutely no recourse against them doing so. The problem is that (and apparently in the past this happened quite a lot), the ISP will shift spammers onto their unlisted space and shift "good" customers onto listed space. Because, essentially, the spammers pay much more and the legit customers complain much less. So even if you promised that no spam would come from you and kept that promise, that's still no guarantee that spam won't be spewing forth from the IP address previously used by you in the next few days.

      Plus, of course, if you (or someone else) promised no spam would come from you and then spectacularly broke that promise, then SPEWS would have no recourse - and would have failed to block a spam run that it should have blocked. (aside: SPEWS stands for Spam Prevention Early Warning System - note the words Early Warning)

      Finally, the most important point - SPEWS are not really concerned about you spamming. In fact, they probably know that no spam has been hitting their spamtraps that comes from your IP address. They know that you're not a spammer. But that's not really the issue here. You're not the one listed. They absolutely do not give a damn about you.

      To help illustrate this point, I have an idea for a slight variation of your plan. And the advantage of this plan over yours - no legal threats are required, if you keep your promise you soon won't be using blacklisted netspace anymore! And SPEWS doesn't have to do anything - they don't even need to hear your promise! In fact, nobody needs to hear your promise but yourself! Guessed how it works yet? It's like this:

      Promise that you won't pay any more money to your corrupt, spam-supporting ISP.

      You keep that promise, the problem will take care of itself. And the best bit is, that's exactly what SPEWS wants you to do. They don't want you to stop spamming

    61. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      Of course my example is extreme.

      And not appropriate to the situation.
      Do you think it is right to be punished because you live in the same gated community as a villian whom the company running the gated community has been helping hide from the law? After all, you could argue that since a gated community is a private business, you are chosing to give money to them by living there, and are thus part of the problem. Of course, pointing out that there was no reasonable way for the person to know that their gated community company was doing that is an argument that falls of deaf ears, it seems.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    62. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by ocelotbob · · Score: 1
      There's no way they'd be able to organise a legally binding contract with you (such that they really could base a lawsuit on it in the case of you violating it) without revealing their identity - and they're anonymous specifically so they don't have to worry about time-wasting lawsuits against them.
      I guess that's the problem of an anonymous organization. There's no one to sue, but conversely, there is no one who can sue, in order to collect damages from organization. In my plan, users who would be blocked would have the opportunity to sign a contract, legally binding, that they wouldn't spam. Thus, if they failed to abide by the rules of that contract, they could be sued for many dollars. Besides, for most ISPs, switching is not just a matter of saying "oh, we're blocked, let's find a new ISP". Switching ISPs costs money. Whether it be manpower in researching a new ISP, or the task of uploading files over, or even the task of having some amount of overlap time, it costs real dollars when you switch ISPs for what are minimal benefits.

      Additionally, the effectiveness of SPEWS is limited, and even spam fighters will admit it. Many spammers have switched from sending out from their netblocks to open proxies and the like in order to send out their mass emails. It's my opinion that an alternative approach to fighting spam, through means such as baysian filtering, and improved firewall rules could perform just as good a job of preventing spam without a shadowy organization such as SPEWS.

      I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't know anyone with connections to the SPEWS list, either as being listed, or as being a lister; I dislike spam, and would not purchase a product from a spammer. On the same token, I feel that some of SPEWS' tactics are overly broad and draconian.

      On a tangental note, I'd like your opinion on a hypothetical situation involving spam. What would you do in such a situation? How would you fight the possibility of someone using the ill-will of spam against a company?

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

    63. Re:The problem that just won't go away. by Pete · · Score: 1
      ocelotbob:

      In my plan, users who would be blocked would have the opportunity to sign a contract, legally binding, that they wouldn't spam. Thus, if they failed to abide by the rules of that contract, they could be sued for many dollars.

      IANAL. However. I very much doubt, in the US at least, that you'd be able to collect enough money even to make the lawsuit worthwhile. Sign a contract promising to hand over a million dollars to $PERSON if you break your promise and do a spam run, then you do break the promise - well, I think the defendant in such a suit would have a very good chance of claiming that the contract was unfair and they were compelled to sign it and the amount was grossly disproportionate to the seriousness of the contract breakage.

      And, more to the point, no spammer is a millionaire. Even the richest of spammers could never afford to pay such a fine, and would simply hide his money and declare bankruptcy the second he was forced to pay (in the extremely unlikely case a court upheld the full amount of the contract violation payment clause).

      But regardless of this money and payment stuff, the issue is not whether the user spams or not. The issue is whether the user is going to keep paying $BAD_ISP for his/her (extremely poor) mailserver connectivity. If he/she decides to change ISPs, then SPEWS is happy, everyone is happy - except $BAD_ISP, who has lost one of their human shields. Not that $BAD_ISP is really concerned though, they know their attractive high-speed and low-cost (ie. spam-subsidised) links will drag in more suckers soon.

      If he/she decides to stay with the abusive ISP who's ripping him/her off with inferior connectivity, then SPEWS is not unhappy or happy. SPEWS really doesn't give a damn - the problem is pretty much solved from their point of view. They'd prefer $BAD_ISP to either kick the spammers out or go out of business, but even if that doesn't happen then at least $BAD_ISP is no longer a problem for the part of the 'net using SPEWS.

      Regarding the effectiveness of SPEWS, of course it's not perfect. But it's certainly good enough, and in most cases it's quite a bit more effective than the alternatives. I personally use a combination of several RBLs as well as SpamAssassin on my personal mailserver(s), but my personal email intake is only three to five hundred a day, max. Even then, when I suck a big number of mails from external to internal mailserver (via fetchmail), the internal mailserver machine fires up SpamAssassin for every message.... and it really hits the machine (a Duron 750) hard. A real mailserver for a real ISP would be hit that hard continuously, all the time. Running SpamAssassin on the server would impact performance quite badly - but if you don't run SpamAssassin on the server and you don't use blocklists, then you don't really have any choice but to buy a lot of extra storage space for all that spam, perhaps upgrade your link to deal with the extra bandwidth load, and let all your technophobic users do their own spam-filtering.

      Basically I'm just trying to say that you shouldn't get too obssessed with filtering as an alternative to blocklists. They're very effective as a last line of defense, but they shouldn't be the only line of defense. An appropriate selection of blocklists is the perfect front line of defense - you cut out the maximum amount of spam for the lowest cost.

      Regarding the last "hypothetical" situation you mention - well, it's not really hypothetical. Joe-jobs are real and have happened and continue to happen. They're mostly trivial and very easily detected, though I believe in the past some have caused organisations to be wrongly listed on blacklists.

      If I was adminning a company faced with a serious joe-job, I'd probably deal with it much the same way I'd face any other kind of

  10. Is that the same Brian McWilliams... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... who for into Hussein's e-mail box and then invented the cyber jihad? Oh, yeah, it is the same guy. Never mind.

    -1: Troll for the whole story.

  11. Lesser of two evils by DeathPenguin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Suddenly, telemarketing doesn't seem so bad. At least my household never got phone calls from perverts offering pics of underaged teens, unlicensed pharmacy ads, etc. And to top it off, telemarketing is a manpower intensive operation whereas one guy can send out a billion e-mail letters on his own. At least telemarketing provides jobs.

    1. Re:Lesser of two evils by yorkrj · · Score: 5, Interesting

      At least telemarketing provides jobs.

      Spam provides jobs too in that someone has to write the filter programs so that we are saved from having to manually delete one more fsking spam.

    2. Re:Lesser of two evils by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My knee breaking service keeps me fully employed. Pay up quick, or I'll give you a free sample.

    3. Re:Lesser of two evils by operagost · · Score: 1

      And sometimes those programs are sold through spamming! I had my Windows PC on the internet outside of my firewall for a full 5 minutes while I was setting up my new DSL account and in that short amount of time, I received a Messenger spam. For a Messenger spam "blocker"!

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    4. Re:Lesser of two evils by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suddenly, telemarketing doesn't seem so bad.

      Yeah, but obviously the telephone spammers don't wake *you* up at 7:30 in the fucking morning you've been up working late till about 4am. AND when I get home later in the day, my answering machine is full of messages left by robots.

      Not that I like spam, but phone crap is even worse for me than checking my email to find I have "151 new messages" (2 of which aren't spam) when I *do* get into work later that morning.

      Face it - spammers and telemarketers are assholes using hard-sell techniques looking for gulible fools who don't need the shit that they're selling.

      If I ran the world, spammers would be executed for being human waste. All of them.

    5. Re:Lesser of two evils by jagripino · · Score: 1

      At least my household never got phone calls from perverts offering pics of underaged teens, unlicensed pharmacy ads, etc

      Can I have you phone number? Problem solved...

    6. Re:Lesser of two evils by vladkrupin · · Score: 1

      At least telemarketing provides jobs.

      True. Unfortunately, true. But this isn't as true in any country of the world as much as it is in the US.

      It is rather sad when economy of a country depends on its citizens' spending as much as US economy does. If you think about it, any and all marketing money is ultimately wasted. This country-wide.

      Marketing doesn't produce anything. You can't export it. You can't use it. It's intangible. Yes, you need to make your potential customers aware of what products are available to satisfy their needs. But give me a break! I know of all the jewelry and excercise machines I have seen on TV 100 times over! Time to stop already! At this point it really IS a major waste. Yes, it is sad to see people loose jobs, but maybe - just maybe - by doing so they will be able to find a job doing something productive? I am not saying marketing people don't do enough - I know they work their butts off. By "productive" I mean making something tangible that other people can use. Some sort of item or a service. Even better, something that is so good and needed that you can export it.

      A country's economy can't run exclusively on marketing and buying! Oh, wait...

      --

      Jobs? Which jobs?
    7. Re:Lesser of two evils by Hoser+McMoose · · Score: 1

      And having worked in both a call center (albeit dial-in, not telemarketing/dial-out) and writing spam filters, let me tell you that the latter is DEFINITELY the better job!

  12. Forget the pills by Mothra+the+III · · Score: 5, Funny

    The penis enlargement lotions work much better. Send me your email and I will tell you how to take advantage of this great offer!

    --
    Worst. Sig. Ever.
    1. Re:Forget the pills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and works really quickly. Like as soon as you start rubbing it on, it starts to get bigger.

    2. Re:Forget the pills by Coke+in+a+Can · · Score: 1

      I am very interested in your proposal. Please contact me at frappe_boy@yahoo.com

      Sincerely,
      Braden Bournival

    3. Re:Forget the pills by gatesh8r · · Score: 1

      Why of course! My email address is darrel.mcbride@sco.com I would be happy to give you the Brooklyn Bridge along with a SCO-compliant copy of Linux!

      --
      Karma whorin' since 1999
    4. Re:Forget the pills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The penis enlargement lotions work much better.

      Maybe, but now I have have to figure out some way to shorten my enlarged fingers. I wish I'd worn gloves.

      --
      me

    5. Re:Forget the pills by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      I AM HAPPY YOU ARE WRITING BACK.

      PLEASE BE SENDING YOUR ROUTING NUMBER SO THAT I
      CAN DEPOSIT THE 10% of 2 MILLION DOLLARS, AND
      THE PHOTOCOPY OF YOUR PASSPORT AND CREDIT CARD.

      and i'm just typeing here to keep the yell filter happy

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    6. Re:Forget the pills by artemis67 · · Score: 1

      ...and it comes in a discreet, plain-brown wrapper that clearly says, "NOT PENIS CREME" on the side.

    7. Re:Forget the pills by iDrifter · · Score: 1

      Man to woman, "Does this condom make me look bigger?"

      --
      This message was done on 100% recycled electrons.
  13. Ob Simpsons by Erick+the+Red · · Score: 1

    It's a glandular problem!

    --

    DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE

    ok
    1. Re:Ob Simpsons by ryants · · Score: 1
      I think you meant:

      "Lucky for you, this stuff doesn't work" -- Cashier at nutrition store as grossly overweight Homer buys Weight Gain powder (episode 3F05)

      --

      Ryan T. Sammartino
      "Ancora imparo"

  14. sh!t by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1, Funny
    Where's my head ... I'm at work and I click on a link to order.html on a site that sells member enlarging pills. STUPID STUPID STUPID!!!

    (In reality, the wired article was linking to the exposed customer logs which now returns a 404.)

    1. Re:sh!t by dnoyeb · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hehe. I always thought, that crap does not work. Their ripping the customer off. But then I saw the diabolicalness of the whole thing.

      "Make your penis HUGE"

      The penis reducing pills start at $1000...

    2. Re:sh!t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... diabolicalness? If only you had seen the dictionary as well...

  15. Black hat heros by Generic+Guy · · Score: 1

    So if a black hat hacks into and exposes security holes for a spammer....

    ... does that make him a whitehat?

    --
    { - Generic Guy - }
    1. Re:Black hat heros by dacarr · · Score: 1
      Well... he'd still be a black hat, but a bit more respectable. I think to do this, said black hat would start doing the Right Thing, seeing good feedback come his way (or if done anonymously, see the good feedback tossed about), encouraging him to do the Right Thing more.

      Or, you could consider that, in a strictly legal sense, spammers do have the same rights on their machines as do J Random User (IE, no illegal intrusions), whether we like it or not - ergo the black hat stays black. Which, quite frankly, sucks. This being overturned would probably have been one really nice side effect of the Berman Bill, if said bill was twisted *just* so. Woulda been nice at any rate.

      On the third hand, if said spammer is left wide open...well, it's very interesting what you can do with dd and a log file. Or dd and an entire partition. Or just fdisk.

      --
      This sig no verb.
    2. Re:Black hat heros by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      I ignore AC's. Use your real name.

      But.. but.. I am an AC! :^P

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    3. Re:Black hat heros by Channard · · Score: 1

      And if Alice Cooper ever tries to post here no doubt he'll come in for the same flak :)

  16. The Best Line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    When approached for comment at a chess tournament in Merrimack, New Hampshire, last month, Bournival, who is a national-master-caliber player, ran away from a Wired News reporter.

    This guy is clearly over his head. He's committing fraud and is going to have to do a lot more running to do when the FDA and FTC get involved.

    --
    me

  17. paging Orwell by p_rotator · · Score: 1

    If there is hope, it lies in the proles.

    NOT.

  18. ON spam... by quandrum · · Score: 4, Interesting

    More and more I've been getting spam that advertises various unscrupulous things, usually the offer of pornographic pictures, but offers no links and has a bad return email address. There is literally no way to contact the the sender without email header hackery.

    What is the point? They can't gain anything from this and leaves me completely baffled..

    1. Re:ON spam... by nomadic · · Score: 1

      you are quite right hdhfgshdfdfdfgghfgsdf

    2. Re:ON spam... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Those are probably bogus emails to harvest valid emails to sell. Usually they put a 1x1px image in the mail so they know who read it and who did not, then they sell those addresses as "1million valid addresses, only $99.99!!!"

    3. Re:ON spam... by ttys00 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The point is this: by not getting a rejection notice ("No such user" type message) they confirm its an actual address. On big servers like Hotmail, dictionary type spam works.

      Example: The spammer sends an email to
      a@hotmail.com
      b@hotmail.com
      c@hotmail.com ....
      aa@hotmail.com
      ab@hotmail.com
      ac@hotmail.c om ....

      and so on.

      Now, send a billion emails to all combinations of addresses, and the ones that don't get rejections are real addresses.

  19. But Wait! There's More! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spam, telemarketing, informercials... there's a sucker born every minute, even in a downturn of the economy.

  20. women customers? by civilengineer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Other customers included the head of a credit-repair firm, a chiropractor, a veterinarian, a landscaper and several people from the military. Numerous women also were evidently among Amazing Internet's customers

    Talk about salesmanship!

    --

    New year Resolution: Don't change sig this year
    1. Re:women customers? by mph · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Numerous women also were evidently among Amazing Internet's customers
      That reminds me. A couple of years ago, I was wondering how easy it was to get prescription drugs on the Internet without seeing a doctor. I went to a web site that sold birth control pills.

      To get the pills, I had to fill out a questionnaire with my medical history.

      No, there was no possibility that I was pregnant.

      No, I had no history of reproductive illness.

      No, I am not a smoker.

      Yes, I understand that the pill does not prevent the transmission of STDs.

      And so forth.

      I submitted my answers, and it proudly announced that I met their criteria and could go on the pill. They were all set to send them to me. I didn't go through with it, though, because of one little thing they didn't bother to ask about... I'm male.

    2. Re:women customers? by wturky · · Score: 1

      Yeah, men, so take heed when your girlfriend or wife seems a little too anxious for you to drink the drink she made for you every day and then breaks out a rule a few days later on you.... :)

    3. Re:women customers? by whterbt · · Score: 1

      That's not really the point. They're not trying to make sure you're part of their target audience. If you're a male dumb enough to buy birth control pills or a female dumb enough to buy penis enlargement pills, so be it. More money for them.

      Their concern is only to avoid lawsuits. They don't want a malformed baby or an STD blamed on them. And if you're male, then the pills are guaranteed to keep you from getting pregnant!

      --
      Too late to be known as Bush the First, he's sure to be known as Bush the Worst.
    4. Re:women customers? by Dr+Reducto · · Score: 1

      If I were a woman, I would slip them in my boyfriend/husbands food for kicks.

    5. Re:women customers? by SeanAhern · · Score: 1

      Talk about salesmanship!

      Or could it be saleswomanship? :-)

    6. Re:women customers? by qtp · · Score: 1

      I'm male.

      Growing breasts?

      --
      Read, L
  21. Total Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Considering that spammers essentially lie, cheat and steal to make money...what's to say they didn't intentionally leave their logs exposed on purpose? And then find someone to 'leak' the information?

    These are the same people who send spam advertising anti-spam software.

    I don't trust anything from a bunch of gutless criminals.

  22. They ought to be shot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or at least have their penis cut off.

    1. Re:They ought to be shot. by tarquin_fim_bim · · Score: 2, Funny

      or at least have their penis cut off

      No point, they'd grow back after another bottle.

  23. Oh Well by devphaeton · · Score: 1

    What kind of an idiot would buy penis-enlargement pills? Even more idiotic, who would buy them from a spammer? Apparently LOTS of people, according to this article at Wired. Of course. If it wasn't hugely profitable, they wouldn't do it. Simple as that. On a side note, we need a complete overhaul of how we handle spam. If idiots quit buying from spammers (you know the kind, the ones with 5 different "internet boost/download enhancers", weatherbug, a few GAIN utils running at once (read: they click YES to everything)) they might get bored and move on to something else like infomercials. Fat chance though. I hate to say this, but there are a lot of people on the inet that don't belong there. And of course, what i've been saying since 1997, you can pass all the laws you want, but enforcement is the problem.

    --


    do() || do_not(); // try();
    1. Re:Oh Well by Erick+the+Red · · Score: 1

      I hate to say this, but there are a lot of people on the inet that don't belong there. And of course, what i've been saying since 1997, you can pass all the laws you want, but enforcement is the problem.

      Face it: you can't idiot-proof the net. Sorry, but this problem isn't going to go away.

      --

      DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE

      ok
    2. Re:Oh Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I hate to say this, but there are a lot of people on the inet that don't belong there."

      Maybe you should set an example and leave then.

  24. And one from Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Tim Campbell
    1235 George Ave.
    Windsor, Ontario
    Canada
    N8Y 2X6
    TEL#:(519) 948-9208

    1. Re:And one from Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tim is my mom's name ... mom is there something you want to share?

    2. Re:And one from Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh no! Not *the* Tim Campbell of Sassy and Pyroto Mountain fame????

    3. Re:And one from Canada by renehollan · · Score: 1

      ...not to mention SPAXX and SISPG

      --
      You could've hired me.
    4. Re:And one from Canada by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Hell no, he's not in Windsor and certainly would spam. (I'd double-check against the article in case of joe-job.)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    5. Re:And one from Canada by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      s/would/wouldn't

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    6. Re:And one from Canada by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      And don't forget starting a cross-Canada multiuser system with games, email and newsgroups .. pre-Internet .. in 1983. What were we thinking? We could have waited 10 years, started an ISP, and then gone broke!

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    7. Re:And one from Canada by renehollan · · Score: 1

      Timing ... is ... everything

      --
      You could've hired me.
    8. Re:And one from Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Im from windsor, and i plan to give this asshat a call tomorrow ;)

      cheers
      Drew

  25. Get your story straight Wired. by Chess_the_cat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This goes against an older article on Wired that said that spammers aren't interested in actually selling anything at all other than e-mail addresses to each other.

    --
    Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
    1. Re:Get your story straight Wired. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      News Flash!
      Wired has more than one person writting articles. They even have more than one editor.

      I don't get why people have such a hard time understanding that it's almost impossible for a large organization to think like the Borg. Of course usually this kind of post is against Slashdot comments being prefectly consistant. Do you want Wired to be a place with a strict party line where any writing that parts from it is never printed?

      I know, I know. Nerds. They pretty clueless about social things.

      --
      me

  26. Those pills work! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bought them and now every time I pop a boner I pass out.

  27. News? by sharky611aol.com · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Is this really news to anyone? Everybody knows that these guys have to make money, otherwise they simply would not exist.

    Just because we happen to be the percentage of the world that is tech-savvy/intelligent/cynical enough (is there a difference?) to see spam for what it is, don't think that for every one of us, there's not 100 Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokels out there just thrilled to death that they finally hit the jackpot, thanks so some guy over in Nigeria.

    The bottom line? Never underestimate the stupidity of the average human being.

    1. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      these guys have to make money, otherwise they simply would not exist.

      OB Simpsons quote:

      "By that logic, I could say that this rock keeps tigers away."
      "How does it work?"
      "It doesn't - it's just a rock."
      "Oh?"
      "But you don't see any tigers around, do you?"
      "I'd like to buy your rock."
      ----------

      The real reason spammers exist is people like you. You believe that "they wouldn't do it if there wasn't money in it." But what if there really isn't any money in it?

      People like you decide that they must be making money, and decide to join in. Then, after you figure out that there really isn't any money in it, you give it up, but not before some other morons figure "hey, there must be money in it, otherwise they wouldn't do it!"

      BTW, I actually do have a rock that keeps tigers away. I'll sell it to you for only $500. I guarantee that as long as I've had it, I've never been attacked by a tiger.

  28. I only goto spam websites to . . . by Stone316 · · Score: 1

    to see the free previews!

    --
    "Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
    1. Re:I only goto spam websites to . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I only go for the articles.

  29. hello their by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hello there my anme is yon adn i am browsing the interwnet and saw this sight. i am wodnring about the "penis elanrgment pils" and watn soem more infomation??? i ahve soem "love isseues" and woudl liek to get thes epills so i can grow many inches preferbaly before steptembre?? sorry abot my englsh i am not anative spiker and i am 13 pls help! just respond thank!

    1. Re:hello their by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pleas people i reeeealy need them befor hoemcoming i want to ahve sex with teh girl i bring but i am ashame!!! pleas tell me wher to get "PENIS ENALRGMENT PILLS"??

      THANK YOU!!!

  30. You! Outta the Gene Pool! by Garg · · Score: 5, Funny

    Tiny dicks AND no brains? Hopefully a side effect of these pills is sterilization...

    Garg

    --
    Garg
    Alumnus, Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters
    1. Re:You! Outta the Gene Pool! by bobllama · · Score: 1

      Come on - with tiny dicks and no brains, do you really think they'll be reproducing (without cloning) anytime soon, even if they aren't sterile?

    2. Re:You! Outta the Gene Pool! by fayd · · Score: 1

      I would think that tiny dicks (or at least the self esteem levels associated with the perception) would render sterilization redundant.

    3. Re:You! Outta the Gene Pool! by molo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Is that Mike Gargano from New City, NY?

      -molo

      --
      Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
    4. Re:You! Outta the Gene Pool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're the CEO of a multi-billion dollar company, YES, you most definitely will get to reproduce. Or at least have lots of wild sex with a hot 18 year old babe.

    5. Re:You! Outta the Gene Pool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contrary to popular opinion, you won't be able to get to be a CEO of a multi-billion dollar company if you don't have any brains... (you might be a detestable bastard, but you have to a fricking smart detestable bastard!)

    6. Re:You! Outta the Gene Pool! by Some+Dumbass... · · Score: 1

      Hopefully a side effect of these pills is sterilization...

      How much do you want to bet that there are no ingredients or information on side effects on the label? You might just get your wish. :)

    7. Re:You! Outta the Gene Pool! by Garg · · Score: 1

      Is that Mike Gargano from New City, NY?

      No, but I think his name was on the customer list.

      (And what the hell happened to my sig? Silly Slashcode!)

      Garg

      --
      Garg
      Alumnus, Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters
    8. Re:You! Outta the Gene Pool! by vladkrupin · · Score: 1

      Tiny dicks AND no brains? Hopefully a side effect of these pills is sterilization...

      No worries. No brains is a good thing. Provides entertainment when they get nominated for Darwin awards.

      --

      Jobs? Which jobs?
    9. Re:You! Outta the Gene Pool! by in7ane · · Score: 1

      Never underestimate randomness.

      Think of thousands of people playing Russian roulette, there will be ones who will survive quite a few games just due to probability (not much skill involved is there?). Let's just hope the side effects are not just sterilization but in fact prove to be the final bullet :)

  31. You have no idea how bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    At a major data center, the operation manager was approach by a spamemr who is operating out of msn. The apparently wished to expand their operations at a resonable cost. Problem is that msn is now chargeing them top cents for helping them to hide the spam. Apparently number were shown to the OO and last I heard they were actually thinking about it. This is a major operation. Nothing minor about it. I suspect that the company will take it up.

  32. A setup? by Monoman · · Score: 1

    It all seems a little too easy to me. Reporters never get setup.... yeah right.

    --
    Keep the Classic Slashdot.
  33. Assuming the log is indeed legit by phlack · · Score: 1
    This just shows that technical solutions aren't the silver bullet to stopping spam (although they do help tremendously).

    If these logs are indeed correct, and people are indeed buying these products, then these are the people we need to educate. By them responding to the spam, they are reinforcing the notion that spam is indeed profitable, and the spammers will continue their assault on our mailboxes.

    Methinks the only way for spam to truly stop is to make it not worth it for the spammer. Besides blocking techniques, we have to make sure they get no positive responses to those message that do get through.

    Unfortunately, this is a society issue. If people really do want this junk, then they are going to buy it. -Phlack

  34. costs of spam by Zorkerman · · Score: 1


    Do you think when survey company X does some kind of cost assessment of how much spam costs companies every year (I believe the last estimate I read was in the $5bil range) they include the time spent reading about how much time is spent thinking about spam? hmm some interesting spam cost sites:
    vircom's cost calculator
    info world

    1. Re:costs of spam by Sir+Haxalot · · Score: 0

      ...and the cost of Bandwidth when the sites gets slashdotted?

      --
      I have over 70 freaks, do you?
    2. Re:costs of spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention the amount of time reading articles and forums _about_ spam.

  35. So what's the surprise? by vbprisoner · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Advertising pays, or we wouldn't get junk TV, junk post, junk email. Greedy bastards do things that sate their greed. They're not likely to do something that annoys loads of people AND doesn't make them shed loads of dosh now, are they.

    --
    But I wore the juice
    1. Re:So what's the surprise? by DaBj · · Score: 1

      They're not likely to do something that annoys loads of people AND doesn't make them shed loads of dosh now, are they.

      So we can't use this theory for SCO either then?

      --
      "GNU's not Unix....it's Linux" / Kami "kokamomi" Petersen
    2. Re:So what's the surprise? by awol · · Score: 1

      Advertising pays, or we wouldn't get junk TV, junk post, junk email.



      Yes, well, does it? Really? I have always been extremely suspicious of the benefits of advertising. The thing that disturbs me most is that the information about the "success" of advertising comes from the industry who is selling the advertising in the first place. Smart business people who would never fall for this crap in their core business buy it all the time in their advertising/marketing it seems so naive.



      Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that advertising is ineffectual, on the contrary, I believe it can work very effectively, but with respect to the "big ticket" advertising strategies, Superbowl adds, major athlete endorsements etc. I just can't see the economics working. It doesn't add up. However, having said all that, I think there is a growing sophistication in the buyers of advertising and the halcyon days of the advertisers are going. The next round of major sporting endorsements will be the start of the deflation as the true value of this stuff is brought home to the consumers of advertising services.

      --
      "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
  36. E-mail Addresses needed by Bull999999 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Where can I get the E-mail addresses of those 6,000 people who ordered the pills? I'm a classmate of a roomate who's sister's boyfriend's father's 3rd cousin is a banker in Nigeria who's looking for someone to help him get 300 million dollars out of Nigeria for a cut.

    --
    1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
  37. slashdotting, no reg by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Many spammers have found ways to profit from sending unsolicited e-mail without selling a single product, using a range of tactics from simple banner ads to outright deception and identity theft.
    It has long been thought that spammers made money only because people bought the products advertised in e-mails, like pornography or weight-loss plans. Now antispam advocates are warning consumers against even replying to spam or going to sites advertised in e-mail, because it could put more money in spammers' pockets.
    "I really don't believe [spam] is about selling things," said Joe St. Sauver, a director at the Computing Center at the University of Oregon, who has worked with the state attorney general to craft antispam legislation. "It'd be nice if that were true, but that's not the case anymore."
    Online industry observers say many spammers make money as long as people visit their Web sites. In such cases, spammers get revenue from banner advertisements displayed on those sites. Web site operators receive a fee from the advertiser for every user that visits the site, and often use unsolicited e-mail ads to attract Web users there. The recipient of the e-mail does not need to register at the site or pay any money.
    Some spammers also use banner ads on Web sites designed to allow people to opt out of future e-mails. For instance, a spammer may include in an e-mail a link titled "Click Here to Opt Out of Future E-mails." But most often the opt-out requests are not honored and spammers simply lure e-mail recipients there to collect banner ad revenue, Mr. St. Sauver and others said.
    Spam is generally considered any unsolicited commercial e-mail. Most of it is either deceptive, pornographic, or both, and costs businesses billions of dollars a year in services and lost productivity.
    Other ways spammers have profited from spam without selling any products include:
    Offering e-mail recipients "free pornography" if they download a software program. The program often provides the pornography, but only after the user's computer dials a 1-900 number to an overseas location, racking up hundreds of dollars in phone charges.
    "Pump and dump" stock schemes, in which a spammer sends e-mails touting a certain stock and encourages people to buy it. The stock's value goes up, and spammers sell it at a profit.
    Accepting payment for an item without sending it. Spammers bet that someone buying Viagra or pills for the enlargement of body parts would be too embarrassed to call the police or Better Business Bureau.
    It is not clear how much spammers profit from these tactics, but it is likely only a fraction of the millions of dollars they pull in each year, antispam advocates said.
    Some observers of spam trends downplayed the severity of these tactics.
    "We don't really think that's significant, to tell you the truth," said Sara Radicati, president of the Radicati Group, a consulting and research firm that tracks e-mail trends. "I doubt that spammers really get much money for it."
    More troublesome, Ms. Radicati said, are the spammers who hijack consumers' identities using e-mail and phony Web sites in a effort to make money.
    The Federal Trade Commission and the FBI in July issued a warning to consumers to look out for "phisher" sites, which are made to look like an official Web site from a company requesting personal information.
    Typically, an e-mail user receives a message with a link to such a site, where he is asked to enter credit-card, social security and personal identification numbers. The FTC and FBI said that incidents with "phisher" sites are increasing, and that they settled a case with a teenager in Los Angeles who had gone on a shopping spree using stolen information.
    Antispam groups advise against replying to any unsolicited commercial e-mail, or clicking on any links. They suggest deleting all e-mails or forwarding them to the FTC's spam database, at uce@ftc.gov.

    --
    1. Re:slashdotting, no reg by kapok_tree · · Score: 1

      The thing that disturbs me about anti-spam legislation is that msot of these activities are already illegal. IANAL, but I think most of them fall under the heading of "fraud" in one form or another. The failulre isn't with the legislation. I honestly can't say I mind receiving targetted advertising that is designed to appeal to my particular interests. Yet these, too, fall under the aegis of spam. The flaw is in the enforcement of existing laws. In order for the spam problem to be reduced, it will be necessary to institute procedures to catch electronic fraud. Right now, these procedures are not in place, and until they are it doesn't matter what the law says anyway.

    2. Re:slashdotting, no reg by swb · · Score: 1

      Yay, you agree with me!

      Fraud is the key, and solving the fraud question is the key.

      Unfortunately I've come to the conclusion that some of these "products" may be technically not fraud, although you and I would recognize them as so.

      I think law enforcement is way too lenient with what is euphamistcally referred to as "agressive sales techniques", which are often as not more plainly just seen as fraudulent sales tactics.

  38. Think McFly, think. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He spammed through a different company. These were the order logs of the company that paid for the spamming.

  39. spammers are dumb by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you read about most spammers (i.e. Ralsky, Hardigree, etc.) the one thing that sticks out about all of them is that they're generally not very intelligent. Their choice is to spam and live in the million dollar house, or go back to McDonald's and the trailer park. Obviously, they're not going back to the trailer park without a fight.

    It's obvious that they're making money; how else is Ralsky going to afford his house?

    1. Re:spammers are dumb by FreeLinux · · Score: 1

      So, I'm wondering how come these "dumb / not very intelligent" spammers are living in multi-million dollar mansions while, us smart geek / admin types are living in ratty apartments and spending all day fighting a losing battle against these dumb spammers? I'm wondering who the smart one really is?

    2. Re:spammers are dumb by Wumpus · · Score: 1

      Haven't you been reading the spam lately? Mortgage interest rates are at an all time low! Refinance now!

    3. Re:spammers are dumb by Lexic0n · · Score: 1

      Generally, I agree. That's why I found it interesting to learn that the guy behind the company mentioned in this story, Amazing Internet Products, is a "national-master-caliber [chess] player" and the New Hampshire Chess Association's VP. Doesn't sound like your run-of-the-mill dope. Hmmm. No point here. Just interesting.

    4. Re:spammers are dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The smart ones are the ones who see the longterm benefit in living in a civil society. Those who abuse or outright ignore the rules that allow us to all coexist together will eventually be cut off at the knees with a chainsaw. (Where's Ted Kazinksky when you really need 'im?!!!)

    5. Re:spammers are dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, did you notice that the spammer in the wired article is vp of a state wide chess club and a champion chess player ?

      Maybe he makes money by paying FUCKING ATTENTION and READING. And having no morals, of course, but focus on READING ARTICLES before OPENING YOUR PIE HOLE and maybe you will get ahead in life.

    6. Re:spammers are dumb by FireDoctor · · Score: 1

      They're not smarter or dumber than your run of the mill geek. They just have more flexible ethics.

      And that is why they are in the mansions while we live where we live. Doesn't matter if they are spammers or CEOs.

    7. Re:spammers are dumb by Aceticon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please do not confuse lack of ethics with lack of inteligence.

    8. Re:spammers are dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is very true. They're smart enough to see an opportunity but dumb enough not to see the consequences of life as a pariah. And I love the way they cite "the American way" as their justification.

      OTOH, maybe they're right. Maybe there is an inverse relation between financial success and one's ethics and this is what the American Dream is all about. Let's ask Ken Lay about it....

  40. Mathematics 101 with DLS! by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 4, Funny

    Okay, sooo... 6000 orders in a 4 week period?

    52 weeks in a standard year (big surprise there for some of you!) so 52 / 4 = 13, thus 13 * 6000 = 78000 sales in one year. For a rough estimate of world population right now I'll take 6.100.000.000 people, but that includes by average 52% women. Thus ( 6.100.000.000 / 100 ) * 48 = 2.928.000.000 and 2.928.000.000 / 78000 ~= 37538 years before every male on this planet has a huge penis and the spam will FINALLY stop!

    I suggest lynching spammers, much faster.

    1. Re:Mathematics 101 with DLS! by danheretic · · Score: 1

      The problem is that then everyone will have a huge penis, and "huge" being relative, the cycle will start all over again.

    2. Re:Mathematics 101 with DLS! by Khomar · · Score: 1

      You forgot the exponential growth rate of the world's population. At only 78,000 new clients every year (many of whom are repeat customers - see the article), we will never catch up.

      Lynch the spammers indeed...

      BTW, at 78,000 sales per year with $35 profit margin ($50 - $5 for actual product - $10 spammer cost), they are looking at a gross of $2.73 million per year. Not a bad income, all things considered. Maybe I need a career change... oh, wait!

      --

      I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!

    3. Re:Mathematics 101 with DLS! by vladkrupin · · Score: 1

      ...and 2.928.000.000 / 78000 ~= 37538 years before every male on this planet has a huge penis and the spam will FINALLY stop!

      Nope! While your math skills seem impressive, it'll take a lot more than 37538 years for every idiot on this planet to die. Or maybe not - idiots have already almost killed humanity as we know it.

      Idiots are like lemmings - they never stop :(

      --

      Jobs? Which jobs?
  41. Trashing GNC? by Kombat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Look how many GNC stores there are these days. They sell nothing but sugar pills and snake oil.

    What makes you think that? GNC sells several useful health products that have very real effects. I buy my multivitamins there, as well as protein powder. Unless the legally-required nutrition label on the side is lying to me, each serving contains 30 grams of protein, just like the container advertises. How is that "sugar pills" or "snake oil?" I buy the powder to get the protein, the container claims to contain protein, the powder actually is protein. I get exactly what I pay for and expect.

    I call bullsh*t on you.

    But they make billions selling Stacker 2 to fatties too lazy to excersize and too weak willed to stem their eating.

    I've heard this comment all the time, too, and I used to think it was true. But as time went on, and I heard the comment more and more, and I met more people taking supplements, creatine, and protein bars/mixes/shakes, I noticed something: they did work out. They weren't just taking the pills and sitting on their asses. Come to think of it, I've never met anyone taking those supplements who wasn't also on some kind of exercise program.

    So I call bullsh*t on you again.

    Twice in one post. Nice work.

    --
    Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
    1. Re:Trashing GNC? by jcr · · Score: 1

      I met more people taking supplements, creatine, and protein bars/mixes/shakes, I noticed something: they did work out. They weren't just taking the pills and sitting on their asses. Come to think of it, I've never met anyone taking those supplements who wasn't also on some kind of exercise program.

      Suprise! The benefit comes from the workout, not the placebos that GNC sells.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:Trashing GNC? by _bug_ · · Score: 1

      I've heard this comment all the time, too, and I used to think it was true. ...They weren't just taking the pills and sitting on their asses. Come to think of it, I've never met anyone taking those supplements who wasn't also on some kind of exercise program.

      I'll just point out that you can't assume this. I've had several friends try to use Stacker 2 without any regular exercise.

      Perhaps, given that you seem to be into your body's health and exercising, the only people you talk with in which supplements would come up are those who work out at the same place or share similar interests.

      I call double bullsh*t on you.

    3. Re:Trashing GNC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you think protein doesn't help build muscle? You think creatine doesn't work? are you living under a rock?

    4. Re:Trashing GNC? by slash-tard · · Score: 0

      hey fuckers cut out this lame "call bullshit" crap. Stacker 2 and all the other similiar products are designed to reduce your appetite, and give you more energy. If you dont think they work try one. This doesnt mean if your a fat fuck who likes to eat for the sheer fun of it that they are gonna work for you.

    5. Re:Trashing GNC? by agslashdot · · Score: 4, Informative

      As a GNC member & frequent customer, I can attest to the fact that many of the products work on placebo effect, if at all they do.
      The side-effects are severe, sometimes fatal.
      The advertizing is quite deceptive, bordering on scam.

      Here are some examples -

      1. GNC MRPs & Protein powders : Body can utilize only so much protein. If you buy a powder with 100 grams protein per serving, you'll simply tax your kidneys and piss it off - no anabolic ( muscle-building ) effect. Anything above 30-40 grams is overkill.

      2. Aspartame in MRPs : Almost ALL meal replacement powders sold in GNC have aspartame. Check aspartamekills.com for known risks. Lately, a few ( eg. MET-RX ) have switched to suclarose and prominently advertize "No aspartame", but doesn't that make then liable since they have sold aspartame-laced powders for so many years before making the switch.

      3. Protein cannot be effectively utilized without carbs, however, the protein powders sold in GNC contain 2-4% carbs, quite inadequate.

      4. GNC also sells soy-protein. On the protein utilization scale, soy has the lowest value. ie. just 30-40% of soy can be utilized by body, the rest is excreted. Besides, soy protein intake leads to man-boobs.

      5. GNC sells ephedra in various brands ( stacker, xenadrine, metabolift etc ). Ephedra is banned in over 20 states in US and has caused over 100 deaths ( check New England Journal of Medicine transcripts ) & thousands of cardiac impairments.

      6. GNC sells glutamine. Now, the body can only utilize glutamine manufactured by its BCAA. It cannot use glutamine consumed orally, so it is pointless to even take glutamine in this form. If you really want glutamine, take BCAA capsules. Of course, GNC won't tell you that.

      7. WTF is NO2 ? Huge ads in GNC for NO2, totally unproven product.

      8. All these calcium supplements - coral calcium, oral calcium whatnots - quite ineffective. Calcium does not bind to the bones when taken in this fashion. Milk builds bones, because the calcium in milk is bound to the carbs and digested as such, and gets to the bones. You can't just pop a pill of calcium & hope it'll get to your bones - it'll simple be excreted.

      9. Male sexual aids in GNC - yohimbe & other herbs, are quite unproven in their efficacy. Check any sex-med mag.

      10. GNC is in the health business, just as tobacco companies are in the nicotine-delivery business. The set aim of GNC franchisee is to sell healthfoods so they make money. Just walk into a GNC and act dumb, and ask them what you should buy to get fit fast. You'd be amazed - they'll give you tons of useless junk that simply don't work & if it does, contributes marginally to making you fit. You have to workout intensely, and they won't tell you that.

      Know your facts before you step into a GNC. At least talk to a nutritionist. There is some really good stuff in GNC, but the vast majority is just sham products with fantastic marketing.

    6. Re:Trashing GNC? by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sure they sell flintstones chewables, and that makes the entire aisle they devote to the caffeine+aspirin "fat loss" pills legitimate.

      I guarantee at the 30 bucks a bottle they sell that crap at, it drives their bottom line.

      After all, vitamins you can get from any reputable pharmacy.

      Beefcake 2000 is their bread and butter.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    7. Re:Trashing GNC? by carlos_benj · · Score: 1

      Suprise! The benefit comes from the workout, not the placebos that GNC sells.

      So, none of those folks worked out before taking the supplements? The only way someone takes supplements is if they start an exercise program for the first time? Clinical studies involving already exercising individuals not taking a particular supplement are flawed in some way?

      You sound like you're speaking from the enlightened position of one who neither takes supplements nor exercises.

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

    8. Re:Trashing GNC? by scoot4 · · Score: 1

      There's no need for the average person to have 4000% of their RDA for any vitamin, but just try to get one that only has what you need. Chances are they won't have it. They try to use the outrageously high RDA %'s as a selling point. You'll just pee most of the stuff out. I know there are people who do need higher than normal amounts of a vitamin, but there's no need for us all to have smelly yellow urine so a few people get what they need.

      --
      MMORPG fan-boy? Prove your worth.
    9. Re:Trashing GNC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i call *triple dog bullshit* on you all!!

    10. Re:Trashing GNC? by core+plexus · · Score: 1
      Well, it's obvious that you've done your research. The question is where did you do it?

      You can believe whatever you want, the fact is certain supplements do have a measurable effect on people who combine them properly, with the rest of their diet and an excercise program. And for me, it's not just evidence from numerous studies (none of which would convince you anyway), but from personal experience that I can confidently make that claim.

      If you don't do your own research, you never know the facts.

      -cp-

    11. Re:Trashing GNC? by PeelBoy · · Score: 1

      When you work out a lot you need to eat a lot of Protein.

      There IS a very good point to protein bars/mixes/shakes.

      On the other hand. I'm not quite sure about those fat burners, energy pills, memory pills etc..

    12. Re:Trashing GNC? by vladkrupin · · Score: 1

      I've heard this comment all the time, too, and I used to think it was true. But as time went on, and I heard the comment more and more, and I met more people taking supplements, creatine, and protein bars/mixes/shakes, I noticed something: they did work out. They weren't just taking the pills and sitting on their asses.

      This is modded as "interesting"? Give me a break! What in the world are you talking about? This is off-topic as much as it is interesting!

      Nobody has a problem with supplements. The guy talks about those who SPAM you and offer you thinkgs that are truly too good to be true. Once I get an offer like Incredible breakthrough. European doctors found a way to loose fat and convert it to muscle. Just order a 60-day supply of that miraculous supplement, and make sure to work your ass off for 4 hours/day, and you will lose weight or your money back!, I'll shut up and say you have a point. Until then please learn to distinguish between SPAM and retail.

      --

      Jobs? Which jobs?
    13. Re:Trashing GNC? by vladkrupin · · Score: 1

      Amen to that! I couldn't have said it better. Neither did I have the time to.

      Taking in 10^4% of some goofy supplement/vitamin, especially with sketchy history or unproven results is at best utterly stupid. It can also be dangerous.

      Indeed, it is akin to a salesman trying to sell my grandma a 3 GHz pentium-4 to do email. Does she need that? No! But their marketing and money-back guarantees are great, and the numbers seem awesome. C'mon, a 3-GHz machine will do my email 3 times better than a 1 GHz, right? Arghh!!!

      --

      Jobs? Which jobs?
    14. Re:Trashing GNC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      1. GNC MRPs & Protein powders : Body can utilize only so much protein. If you buy a powder with 100 grams protein per serving, you'll simply tax your kidneys and piss it off - no anabolic ( muscle-building ) effect. Anything above 30-40 grams is overkill.


      Wrong. Eating more protein than you need doesn't tax your kidneys, unless you have a pre-existing kidney disfunction. The claim that you can only process 30-40 grams of protein in a sitting is an urban myth with no basis in reality--think otherwise? Try finding a single peer-reviewed article in a reputable journal that says otherwise. Hint: you won't find one.


      3. Protein cannot be effectively utilized without carbs, however, the protein powders sold in GNC contain 2-4% carbs, quite inadequate.


      A remarkably stupid comment. Can't process protein without carbs? Try going on a ketogenic diet (Hint: that means no carbs), like the Atkins diet. You can survive eating only proteins and fats for as long as you like. Your body can use ketogens instead of carbs for energy.



      5. GNC sells ephedra in various brands ( stacker, xenadrine, metabolift etc ). Ephedra is banned in over 20 states in US and has caused over 100 deaths ( check New England Journal of Medicine transcripts ) & thousands of cardiac impairments.



      Ok, I'll do that. Hey, what do you know, you're wrong! Who would have guessed. Here's part of the relevant abstract:


      My review, reported August 8, 2000, at the Department of Health and Human Services's Public Meeting on the Safety of Dietary Supplements Containing Ephedrine Alkaloids, in Washington, D.C., showed no consistent clinical or pathological features of the reported adverse events

      How wrong can one man be? Going by your track record you're probably talking out of your ass about aspartame and glutamine also, but I can't be bothered to look it up.

    15. Re:Trashing GNC? by CTachyon · · Score: 1
      2. Aspartame in MRPs : Almost ALL meal replacement powders sold in GNC have aspartame. Check aspartamekills.com for known risks. Lately, a few ( eg. MET-RX ) have switched to suclarose and prominently advertize "No aspartame", but doesn't that make then liable since they have sold aspartame-laced powders for so many years before making the switch.

      I'd never heard of this, so I checked out the site and it set off my "Steve Gibson" meter. On a hunch, I did a google for "aspartame skeptic", and a few links in I found the following article: http://www.csicop.org/cmi/reviews/aspartame.html. I'll wait a few years for the final verdict myself, by which time sucralosekills.org should be up and some new sweetener will be in vogue.

      The rest of your post is a bit exaggerated in places but basically spot-on. Personally, I would have extended the ephedra rant to include all "thermogenic" products, as they're all going to (by definition) be similar in effect.

      --
      Range Voting: preference intensity matters
    16. Re:Trashing GNC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's sweet that you showed that his claims about aspartme were wrone and then assumed that the rest of his crap was on-target.

    17. Re:Trashing GNC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, what do you know, you're wrong! Who would have guessed. Here's part of the relevant abstract:

      You are a retarded dipshit. What's the deal with you retarded trolls reading some semi-scientific paper and interpreting it as gospel? A lot of that shit is opinion, anyway.

    18. Re:Trashing GNC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It was an abstract from the New England Journal of Medicine, moron. I searched the journal as the grandfather suggested, moron. The results were contrary to his claims, moron.


      Speaking of opinion, my opinion is that you are a fuckwit.

    19. Re:Trashing GNC? by hoxford · · Score: 3, Informative

      1. GNC MRPs & Protein powders : Body can utilize only so much protein. If you buy a powder with 100 grams protein per serving, you'll simply tax your kidneys and piss it off - no anabolic ( muscle-building ) effect. Anything above 30-40 grams is overkill.


      Cites on studies that support this 30-40 gram limit? Or how about any studies showing problems with healthy kidneys processing large protein intakes? There is no set limit on how much protein the body can process per serving. It depends on a multitude of factors -- how quickly the protein digests, the overall energy balance of the person, whether the person is exercising or sitting their ass.


      2. Aspartame in MRPs : Almost ALL meal replacement powders sold in GNC have aspartame. Check aspartamekills.com for known risks. Lately, a few ( eg. MET-RX ) have switched to suclarose and prominently advertize "No aspartame", but doesn't that make then liable since they have sold aspartame-laced powders for so many years before making the switch.


      Again, any studies to back this up? You're good at making claims, where is your data? A hint: quotes from bullshit websites do not count. Something published in a real journal does.


      3. Protein cannot be effectively utilized without carbs, however, the protein powders sold in GNC contain 2-4% carbs, quite inadequate.


      You really are a fucking idiot, aren't you?
      It'll be far too tedious to go item by item and point out how wrong you are since pretty much every point you make is either flatly wrong or mostly wrong. You spout a combination of myths and pseudo-science that has no factual backing. None. Zero. You must be a personal trainer at a Bally's or some other chrome and tone gym. Or perhaps you've taken your own advice and spoken with a nutritionist. Most of them are quoting 20 year old texts that have been invalidated through new studies and understanding of nutrition and physiology.

    20. Re:Trashing GNC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for copying my post. This has all been said already, but's it's just so special when you say it.

    21. Re:Trashing GNC? by hoxford · · Score: 1

      Try logging in and someone might actually see what you write.

      But good points, anyway -- since we did pretty much say the same thing. And no, I didn't read your post first. You don't happen to follow MFW do you?

    22. Re:Trashing GNC? by Kombat · · Score: 1
      Wow.

      Your post is so ridiculous and incorrect that I initially wasn't going to respond. But on the off-chance that someone just getting started in fitness might read your post and form some grossly erroneous opinions on supplements, I'm going to take a couple of minutes to pick your post apart.

      1. Yes, of course your body can only utilize so much protein. But if you're not giving it enough, then you're not realizing the full benefits of your workouts. The powders and bars provide a convenient and affordable way to "top off" your protein requirements. And by the way, I've never seen a bar or powder that claims to deliver 100 grams of protein in a single serving. The most I've ever seen is 35 grams. The stuff I use has 30 grams per serving.

      2. The long-term side effects of aspartame are still not very well understood, although I personally know someone who has permanently lost her peripheral vision due to overconsumption of aspartame (12 cans of Diet Coke daily for months; the worst part? She's still drinking Diet Coke judiciously). However, the amount of aspartame present in MRPs is well below safe, acceptable limits, even according to nutritionists.

      3. "Protein cannot be effectively utilized without carbs?" Where did you get that from? Besides, most protein powders do include carbs. In fact, you have to look extra hard to find protein powder without carbs. And virtually all MRPs are composed of the ideal 30-30-40 balance of protein, fat, and carbs. But even if you had a point, and these powders were low in carbs, there's no evidence to back up your claim that we need carbs to process protein. In fact, there is a multitude of evidence against your claim, for example, the millions of people who have been on the Atkins diet for years without any ill effects.

      4. "On the protein utilization scale, soy has the lowest value" This is simply patently false. Soy protein has a better Protein Efficiency Ratio (PER) than wheat protein.

      5. "GNC sells ephedra..." Again, just plain wrong, at least in Canada. I was into GNC just 2 weeks ago and asked them that very question, and the 2 clerks informed me that GNC had pulled all Ephedra products from their shelves indefinitely. Although this is really just a boogieman chase, as Ephedra is very similar to caffeine, which can also be abused. Both are stimulants, and neither are harmful, unless taken in large doses. The people having trouble with Ephedra likely would have had the same problems with caffeine supplements. They are also typically people with pre-existing heart conditions who failed to consult their doctor prior to commencing taking the supplements (or did, and simply ignored their doctor's advice), or people who ignored the instructions and took much larger doses than recommended. But the point is moot, since you're wrong, and GNC doesn't sell Ephedra anymore.

      6, 7. You can't criticise these substances without providing a shred of evidence to indicate that they're actually bad, or that GNC actually sells them. Link to a study that proves glutamine is bad, then link to the GNC order page showing a product containing glutamine. In short, "put up, or shut up."

      8. If the supplement contains what it says it does (calcium), and people are willing to buy it anyway, then sure, it's probably a waste of their money.

      Look, there are products out there that claim to "melt fat with no exercise." These claims are obviously false. And GNC probably stocks some of these products on their shelves. But they also stock products that do work, like the creatine, protein, MRPs, and thermogenics (though some of the thermogenics are the ones making those claims).

      I responded because "stratjakt" claimed that GNC "sells nothing but sugar pills and snake oil." While some of the products may be little more than

      --
      Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
    23. Re:Trashing GNC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. GNC MRPs & Protein powders : Body can utilize only so much protein. If you buy a powder with 100 grams protein per serving, you'll simply tax your kidneys and piss it off - no anabolic ( muscle-building ) effect. Anything above 30-40 grams is overkill

      Why do idiots keep repeating that lie? Seriously, I think I see it twice a week or more. Why?

    24. Re:Trashing GNC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps it is because no one proves them wrong...? Go ahead: prove him wrong!

    25. Re:Trashing GNC? by mink · · Score: 1

      While those sites me be out there, My wife was getting problems with elevated blood suger levels and her vision was bluring while ingesting 3 cans of diet soda per day. We ditched the nutrasweet and her vision cleared up and her blood sugers went down from over 200 constant to the more normal 110-140 range.
      I just think the stuff tastes nasty.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    26. Re:Trashing GNC? by CTachyon · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry to hear that. Nutrasweet actually gives me the runs myself, if I drink more than about 30 oz of diet cola in a day. However, the fact that my sister's tongue swells up in allergic reaction to strawberries doesn't mean that we need a site called strawberrieskill.com spuriously claiming that strawberries outright cause a serious disease known to have a large genetic component.

      --
      Range Voting: preference intensity matters
  42. thanks! by travdaddy · · Score: 1

    Gotta love Wired for tagging this at the end of the article:

    The company's PayPal account shows two e-mail addresses: vze3c9sk@verizon.net and frappe_boy@yahoo.com.

    Which implies: sign these two addresses up for lots and lots of spam!

    --
    Adidas To Bring Back Sneakernet
    1. Re:thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which implies: sign these two addresses up for lots and lots of spam!

      Which would hurt legitimate users at verizon and yahoo...

  43. Yeah, do the math by tundog · · Score: 1

    6,000 orders * $10 per order * 12 months = a whopping $720,000 per annum. Assuming product is markup up 10%, that gives us a $72,000. Less mainternance costs, less bandwidth costs, less legal fees, how much is really left over?

    --
    All your base are belong to us!
    1. Re:Yeah, do the math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      did you read the article? $50/bottle, multiple bottles per order....

    2. Re:Yeah, do the math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA. $50 per order, average order 2 bottles means 7.2 MILLION dollars per annum.

      Given that the product plus referal cost was $5 per bottle and $10 per order, that leaves $5,760,000 gross profit per annum. I'm not thinking bandwidth costs that much.

    3. Re:Yeah, do the math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Assuming product is markup up 10%.

      Markup from distributor to retailer is probably closer to 50% as it is on most consumer goods.

      So - $360,000 is a lot better than $72,000.

    4. Re:Yeah, do the math by Teancom · · Score: 1

      But it's $50 per bottle, and they are making $35 p/bottle post-raw materials and shipping. So, do the math again...

    5. Re:Yeah, do the math by kent_eh · · Score: 1

      that gives us a $72,000. Less mainternance costs, less bandwidth costs, less legal fees, how much is really left over?


      $72,000 per year for one product. Do you really think any of these bozos limit themselves to just selling one thing?

      That's pretty good money for very little effort (if you don't count all the effort they go to in hiding from reprocussions).

      --

      ---
      "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
    6. Re:Yeah, do the math by justMichael · · Score: 1

      Do you really think ANY business runs at a 10% markup?? Even a 10% margin is a losing proposition.

      The vast majority of business runs around a 75% markup.

      I would venture to guess that penis enlargement pills are 100% markup or higher. If they are selling at $10 per they are probably getting stock between $3 and $5.

    7. Re:Yeah, do the math by VtWebWizard · · Score: 1
      Um, no, read the rest of the article. $50/bottle, most customers ordering 2 = $100/order.

      Cost: $5/bottle + $10 affiliate fee + $3 shipping, that leaves a per bottle profit of $32/bottle.

      6000 order/month, 2 bottles/order, $32 profit/bottle = $4,608,000 gross.

      The article mentions a "several thousand square foot office", assume $15/sf/year rent for 2000 sf. Say 4 T1's to send lots of email @ $1000/month. That's a "mere" $78,000 in rent/bandwidth. Throw in another $20k for a new computer or two every month and he's still going to net over $4m/year.

      Frankly if someone offered me $4m/year to send out tons of spam, I'd have a hard time saying 'no'.

      The assumption that he's actually pulling in 6,000 order/month all of the time is the weakest assumption in this chain, but still, even a month or two of that volumn and he's earning more than most of us.

    8. Re:Yeah, do the math by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

      Considering it's probably just baking soda, a tablespoon of red and black pepper for color, the geletin capsules and the machinery to produce the pills comes to about $10,000-$20,000, I'd say they were being marked up far more.

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  44. Humanity at a loss by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    So it's come down to this. Morrons that support SPAMers. Shit, will the stupid people please stop breeding? Get a puppy instead or something.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:Humanity at a loss by Baron_Yam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd always hoped that people stupid enough to order spam-advertised items would be too stupid to operate a computer, nevermind use email software.

      Apparently, there is a small but significant range in which you're smart enough to use a computer, but too dumb to know what to do with it.

    2. Re:Humanity at a loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently, there is a small but significant range in which you're smart enough to use a computer, but too dumb to know what to do with it.

      Quick! Stop working on Linux usability!

  45. Privacy by Khakionion · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The coach of an elementary school lacrosse club in Pennsylvania ordered four bottles of the pills.

    I know a little bad publicity is in order for these foolhardy people as a group, but isn't that a little specific of a description? How many ELEMENTARY SCHOOL lacrosse teams are there in Pennsylvania?
    --
    OMG! Wau!
  46. fucking naive by gfody · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The president of a California firm that sells airplane parts and is active in the local Rotary Club gave out his American Express card number...

    you really believe these people purchased this shit? these people's credit cards were stolen! ever get emails that resemble ebay's account page or aol's billing or some other fake bullshit thats trying to snatch your credit card numbers.. those things fool a lot more people than "make your penis huge" sells penis pills

    what do you think gets done with all those stolen cc's.. the bastard turns around and signs them up for penis pills, porno sitesm, etc whatever gets the comission. sending out a buttload of spam to the same people that your stealing ccs from just obfuscates things to help cover your tracks. this is the real shady shit thats going on with spam.. not penis mail that people are actually buying, people are getting ripped off!

    --

    bite my glorious golden ass.
    1. Re:fucking naive by fermion · · Score: 1
      Why would you assume that the president of a company and a member of go-to-be-seen club is smarter than average? I have known and have worked for presidents of companies that are quite competent in what they do, but have quite a bit trouble when they have to deal with new situations. For instance, they join AOL and believe that the '3691' at the end of thier ID means that AOL has that many customers with the same ID.

      They also have the expendable income so they can order this stuff as a joke.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  47. What are the ecomonics of /. trolling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What kind of an idiot would click on a goatse link? Even more idiotic, who would read a GNAA post? Apparently LOTS of people! The operators of slashdot order site left their customer exposed to cmdrtaco. There were 6,000 trolls since July 4. Sayeth Wired: "Do the math and you begin to understand why trollers are willing to put up with the wrath of cmdrtaco, fellow /.'er and cmdrtaco.

  48. No kidding!!! by notetoi · · Score: 1

    A sucker born every minute, and in a few years the sucker gets 10 new email accounts every month!

    Just wondering... Do geeks (still) read Wired? I always thought Wired is a mixture between Ikea Catalog and the Circuit Section of the New York Times.

    1. Re:No kidding!!! by froogger · · Score: 1

      Hey, I'm a geek, and I still read Wired. That's where I initially saw the story. Not often on, though. It's a lot of years gone by since the 'information wants to be free' and 'zippies' attitude of the ninieties (before they sold out). And where did my guru go? The guy with the greek name, dang, can't remember what it was... Oh, a quick search on Amazon and I get: being digital : Nicholas Negroponte. He was way out there. Fun to read, though.

  49. Homer Says: by CaptainTap · · Score: 0

    I'm tired of missing out on all these get rich quick schemes. But I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme, and quick!

    --
    -- So now the world is a bit more stupid thanks to you.
  50. AOL also "blanket blocks" by SHEENmaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    but of my sites, only one has any members from AOL.

    I called them, and reached an agreement whereby they would allow email from my server if I agreed to put my name, address, and phone number on nonexistant mass emails. I have never done mass emailing. Needless to say, they didn't follow the agreement. Email still doesn't get to AOL users, and I have to give them their passwords manually through AIM.

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
  51. bad advertising placement by mblase · · Score: 1

    Right after a couple of paragraphs on the "effectiveness" of selling penis-enlargement pills online, I see this blurb:

    (photo of bald guy with big goofy laugh)
    Find out how Novell Nterprise Linux Services
    will put a smile on your face ... read more.

    And I though, Dang... penis pills are so profitable that Novell's getting into that business, too?

  52. I bought the pills by Hayzeus · · Score: 5, Funny

    I alone am responsible for all 6000 orders. Soon, very soon, my penis will be the size of North America, and the world will quake in fear.

    1. Re:I bought the pills by cmburns69 · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of an old satire wire article:

      VIAGRA SPILL REVIVES LAKE MICHIGAN

      One of the funniest things I've ever seen!

      --
      Online Starcraft RPG? At
      Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
    2. Re:I bought the pills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ROFL>>>>>>>>>>>>>&gt ;

    3. Re:I bought the pills by Uncle+Op · · Score: 1

      I alone am responsible for all 6000 orders
      I presume you're male? It would be really scary if you're not...

    4. Re:I bought the pills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why am I reminded of Archimedes' Lever?

    5. Re:I bought the pills by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's the biggest laugh I've had in weeks, man. God bless you and your continental penis.

      --
      --- Ban humanity.
    6. Re:I bought the pills by Some+Dumbass... · · Score: 1

      Soon, very soon, my penis will be the size of North America, and the world will quake in fear.

      Quakes, eruptions, floods, whatever... it's all good.

    7. Re:I bought the pills by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Just so long as it's not also an incontinent penis! That would be messy.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    8. Re:I bought the pills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dammit, W. I thought you had given up on that plan.

      Dad

    9. Re:I bought the pills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      funny thanks treat yourself to a coffee on me

    10. Re:I bought the pills by eaolson · · Score: 1
      I alone am responsible for all 6000 orders. Soon, very soon, my penis will be the size of North America, and the world will quake in fear.
      You think we will be the ones quaking in fear? Where do you think is the only place we'll have left to stand?
  53. The Zen of being a member of society... by Gefiltefish11 · · Score: 2, Insightful


    This article points out a simple fact: there are lots of stupid people and we suffer, every day, for their stupid behavior.

    This is not a rarity or even particularly frustrating. Really, those of us awake enough to notice it suffer from other people's stupidity day in and day out. Just turn on the television and be amazed by not just the commercials but the programming now too. Go for a drive. Take a walk through a shopping mall. Order food from a fast food restaurant.

    The proliferation of spam because of a few dopes is just another fact of life on earth. I try my best to enjoy the irony (while not wearing out my delete key).

    1. Re:The Zen of being a member of society... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you forget to mention the whitehouse

  54. Not in California! by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 2, Informative
    If you are in California, all spam must contain "ADV:" as the first 4 characters of the subject line. In addition, the first line of text must contain a valid removal address. In addition, if you are a California e-mail service provider that has a policy that prohibits spam, they are not allowed to send spam through your servers.



    I sued a porn spammer and going after more spammer.

    1. Re:Not in California! by Willie_the_Wimp · · Score: 1

      Is it just me, or is it not a surprise that given your slashdot username, you are suing a porn spammer? :)

  55. Why aren't they going to jail? by swb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    My quesiton is, where's the FTC/FBI in all this? Why aren't these people going to jail for operating a fradulent enterprise? Do we not (or did we ever?) put people in jail for that? Or do we just put them on the cover of Business Week and call them "Corporate Executives"?

    Sorry of the cynacism, but it strikes me that in the spam problem arena the money trail is the one thing that can be followed (vs. forged header, hijacked .cn servers, etc), and if people started going to jail for internet fraud (yes, to the infamous Slashdot "Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Prison"), then spam WOULD slow dramatically, since most spam is for the same small number of "products".

    That, and maybe some aggressive advertising by the FTC about the fraudulent, doesn't-do-anything-but-cost-you-money nature of the products:

    (Imagine Bob Dole: "Hi, I'm Bob Dole, and like many of you, I thought Viagra wasn't enough, I thought maybe I needed 12" pornstar sledgehammer as well. Well let me tell you, those pills don't work, can't work, won't work, so don't waste your money. I wish they would work, but like my wife Elizabeth, your loved one is just going to have to learn to like your 4" pindick.")

    1. Re:Why aren't they going to jail? by Frymaster · · Score: 1
      My quesiton is, where's the FTC/FBI in all this?

      they're in america. the "f" stands for "federal".

  56. let's break this down by painehope · · Score: 2, Funny

    Other customers included the head of a credit-repair firm :
    heh...a scammer getting scammed...
    a chiropractor :
    well, maybe he wanted to straighten out more than his patients' backs...
    a veterinarian :
    maybe he felt insecure after working around horses?
    a landscaper :
    Well, according to Hustler, these guys get loads of poontang from horny housewives and their nubile 18 year old daughters, so maybe he just needed it to keep up w/ business.
    and several people from the military :
    Private Johnson, don't ask, don't tell.
    Numerous women also :
    I guess penis pumps just aren't cutting it anymore...

    --
    PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
  57. Child endangerment by Sean80 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I wonder how long it will be until a parent sues a spammer purely within the framework of existing laws. IANAL, but I can't imagine it's legal to walk down the street and try to sell pornography to minors, for example. How can it be any different for spam?

    Perhaps all you'd need to do is prove that the primary user of an email address was a minor, and wham, bham, thank you for the million bucks.

    At the least it might stop people just randomly hitting yahoo.com or hotmail.com email addresses. On the other hand, if you give your email address to a porn site in the first place, some people might argue that you deserve what you get, quite frankly.

  58. Proposed Solution by barryfandango · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sell pills to people (via spam) that actually causes sterility instead of the virility the label promises. Once we take these mouth-breathers out of the gene pool spammers will have to call it quits.

    --
    In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. -Oscar Wilde
  59. RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Article says cost of pills is $5, plus about $10 in fees to spammers. At $50 per bottle selling price, that is $35/bottle profit.

    Do your math again now..

  60. They're not just spam idiots by mblase · · Score: 1

    "There was a picture on the top of the page that said, 'As Seen on TV,' and I guess that made me think it was legit," said a San Diego salesman

    Jiminy Christmas, no wonder spammers are making it rich. And that guy's a salesman, someone who should know a cheap marketing trick when he sees one. A guy who believes something's true if it's been on TV has probably already traded most of his brain cells for crack.

    1. Re:They're not just spam idiots by Maul · · Score: 1

      What better way for someone to sell a product than to believe the lies about the product themselves?

      --

      "You spoony bard!" -Tellah

  61. Outlawing SPAM is not the answer. by termdex · · Score: 1

    Responding to SPAM should be outlawed.

  62. quote a spammer. by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1
    "I don't want to take time out my enjoyment of life, to write that I didn't subscribe." George Moore aka. Dr. Fatburn.

    It is not free speech. This was ruled with junk faxes, because they shift the cost of advertising to the recipient.

  63. Free speech component ? by grims · · Score: 1

    I was watching tv the other day and there were showing three/four spammers, and all of them were saying that spamming is an instance of free speech, and that it should be upto the individual recipient to filter out what should/shouldnt be got. They were also discussing about how ISPs contain monopolies of adware, and spammers are fighting against that. How valid a point is it do you think ?

    1. Re:Free speech component ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They mean free as in beer - they get to talk and you get to pay.

      Commercial speech (sales pitches, etc) have been ruled as controllable in ways that political speech cannot be. Spam is commercial speech - it can and should be banned.

    2. Re:Free speech component ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How valid a point is it do you think ?

      None. Nada. Zip. Zero.

      spamming is an instance of free speech

      Free speech means "you can say what you want". It does NOT mean "you can force people to pay for your speech", nor does it mean "you can force third parties to carry your speech, at their expense, against their wishes", nor does it mean "you can force people to listen to you."

      it should be upto the individual recipient to filter out what should/shouldnt be got

      And nobody said "well then, why are you against marking your spam, so that people who don't want it can filter it?", or "Why do you continually change your tactics to get around filters that THESE INDIVIDUAL RECIPIENTS place on their mailboxes?"

    3. Re:Free speech component ? by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Free speach dosent mean people need to listen to you you cant break into my house or even yell at my house to excersize your free speach. Ads are not nessicarily free speach either they are used for business and have there own set of laws. I can say I think AOL sucks and nobody should use it. Earthlink can state facts but cant slander there compotition or deliver false of misleading statements I can if I choose to as long as it's my persoanl opinion and isn't outright dangerious like C construction made this building and they allwasy make fault buildings this place is about to fall down in a crowded room in a serious or paniced manner.

      If the ISP's set a default page to there stuff cool who ever installs ISP software? OK Grandma did and your cousins but it' just an isue of education how many people have Google as there homepage or Yahoo or MSN realy it's there preferance just like picking up the Wall Streat Jurnal or the New York Times there is a choice to the user as long as the choice is protected and people are educated that there is a choice it's not an issue.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
  64. SPAMNAZI by ryanw · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I created a website a month or so ago to address this issue. I believe this will be the ONLY solution to getting rid of spam.

    http://www.spamnazi.org

    1. Re:SPAMNAZI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want people to adopt your source code, but you don't even know how to spell (multiple typos on the first page of your site)? Please tell us English is NOT your first language.

    2. Re:SPAMNAZI by ryanw · · Score: 1

      Well, excuse me for using VI instead of frontpage.

    3. Re:SPAMNAZI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does VI have to do with bad spelling?

  65. Jewish=Spammer? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
    "An investigation (registration to Salon.com required) last month revealed that Bournival's mentor and business partner is Davis Wolfgang Hawke, a chess expert and former neo-Nazi leader who turned to the spam business in 1999 after it became public that his father was Jewish."

    Oh, well, if his father's jewish...it only make sense that he become a spammer.....Seriously, WTF is with that?!?!?! This guy is an insult to us Jews.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    1. Re:Jewish=Spammer? by Burgundy+Advocate · · Score: 1

      I think it's just to underline how fucked up this guy is. Read it again -- he was a neo-Nazi, but his father was Jewish. Nazis and Jews haven't exactly had a peachy relationship. It'd be the same as saying "...former KKK leader who turned to the spam business in 1999 after it became public that his father was black.".

      The impression I think the author is trying to get across is that this guy has issues -- when it became clear that he is exactly what he hates, he changed tracks slightly and went into spamming.

      --
      Dragging people kicking and screaming into reality since 1996.
    2. Re:Jewish=Spammer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think they're making fun of Jewish people, like you and I (well, I'm half Jewish).

      I think they meant he became a spammer after the neo-nazi fucks found out he had Jewish blood in him, and could not participate in their little bullshit games.

    3. Re:Jewish=Spammer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed the part about former neo-Nazi, didn't you?

      Makes me wonder which one's dumber.

    4. Re:Jewish=Spammer? by rbird76 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I assume that he's a spammer not because his dad was Jewish, but because he lost all credibility as a neo-Nazi when his fellow travelers found him out. Once that happened, he needed a job in which integrity, humanity, and credibility are not required attributes. Hence...he became a spammer. The comment is more of an insult to neo-Nazis than Jewish people...how can anyone claim that the neo-Nazis are the cream of the gene pool (as they claim) if all that unemployed neo-Nazis can do is disperse spam? The comment should be taken not as an insult to Jews but as an insult to single-celled life everywhere.

    5. Re:Jewish=Spammer? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      " You missed the part about former neo-Nazi, didn't you? Makes me wonder which one's dumber."

      I don't know if you were referring to me being on par with the stupidity of this guy (I don't really see the need to make comments like that), but no, I didn't miss that part about him being a neo-Nazi. I realize he musta been real pissed when he foudn out his father was a Jew. What I was pointing out is how that quote from the article makes no sense. So you get really pissed about a family/race issue....so....you turn to spamming? What kind of sense does that make? There's no real connection.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    6. Re:Jewish=Spammer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, he could no longer make a living as a neo-nazi.

    7. Re:Jewish=Spammer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I was pointing out is how that quote from the article makes no sense. So you get really pissed about a family/race issue....so....you turn to spamming? What kind of sense does that make? There's no real connection.

      Exactly. So why are you making a big deal out of it? The article simply points out his shady past (neo-Nazi) and then points out his shady present (spammer). You are simply objecting that the reason for the change, namely that his father is Jewish, was mentioned.

      Sheesh... enough with the persecution complex already!

    8. Re:Jewish=Spammer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This guy is an insult to us Jews.

      Jebus, give your persecution complex a rest.

      What they're saying is "he's really fucked up - he left the neo-nazi movement in shame, and now is a spammer."

    9. Re:Jewish=Spammer? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      "Exactly. So why are you making a big deal out of it? The article simply points out his shady past (neo-Nazi) and then points out his shady present (spammer). You are simply objecting that the reason for the change, namely that his father is Jewish, was mentioned. Sheesh... enough with the persecution complex already!"

      First off, I have no persecution complex, I wasn't making this into a whole "i'm jewish, they shouldn't have said that" kinda thing. I could care less about that. I just found it odd that they linked those two things together. If they had mentioned them seperately, no biggie, but I found it odd that they connected them, and posted a comment pointing this out. The connection makes no sense, which is why I was questioning it. Understand?

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    10. Re:Jewish=Spammer? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      "Jebus, give your persecution complex a rest."

      There is no persecution complex at work here my cowardly friend, I made that remark as an offhanded sarcastic joke. Not everybody takes religious matters seriously.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    11. Re:Jewish=Spammer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he needed a job in which integrity, humanity, and credibility are not required attributes
      Hence...he became a spammer.


      So, why not a lawyer?

    12. Re:Jewish=Spammer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      First off, I have no persecution complex, I wasn't making this into a whole "i'm jewish, they shouldn't have said that" kinda thing. I could care less about that. I just found it odd that they linked those two things together. If they had mentioned them seperately, no biggie, but I found it odd that they connected them, and posted a comment pointing this out. The connection makes no sense, which is why I was questioning it. Understand?

      The problem is, you weren't simply questioning it. You stated:
      "This guy is an insult to us Jews."
      Questioning it is fine, but your quote above in your original message certainly isn't the result of simply "finding it odd". Clearly you "could care less about that" because you care a great deal. If you truly don't care, you would say "I could NOT care less". Think about it.

      And why don't you understand the connection. A neo-Nazi turns spammer. Why did he turn spammer? Because his father is Jewish and that doesn't go over very well in the neo-Nazi community. How is it you are unable to understand this simple chain of events? Had it simply said that a neo-Nazi turns spammer, you would see spammers claiming that they're not former neo-Nazis and that "this guy is an insult to us spammers".

      Your reactionary "This guy is an insult to us Jews" comment is proof that it certainly touched a sore spot in you. Perhaps not a persecution complex, but some such similar pathology is at work. Have you considered seeking therapy for this? Does being Jewish bother you?
    13. Re:Jewish=Spammer? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      "Your reactionary "This guy is an insult to us Jews" comment is proof that it certainly touched a sore spot in you. Perhaps not a persecution complex, but some such similar pathology is at work. Have you considered seeking therapy for this? Does being Jewish bother you?"

      Perhaps you've never heard someone make a sarcastic remark about their religion. It didn't touch any sore spot with me, it made me laugh, and in fact I was making a joke with that Jewish bit, so drop it already.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    14. Re:Jewish=Spammer? by rbird76 · · Score: 1

      Spamming doesn't require multiple degrees - just a computer, some knowledge, and the lack of the above attributes. Besides, if he could have been a lawyer, he probably wouldn't be spamming; judging from other threads offtopic (SCO, etc.) law is becoming a growth industry - kind of like a tumor, but a profitable one.

  66. You do it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Here is the right way:

    "Bob Dole here, and like many of you, Bob Dole thought Viagra wasn't enough, Bob Dole thought maybe Bob Dole needed 12" pornstar sledgehammer as well. Well let Bob Dole tell you, those pills don't work, can't work, won't work, so don't waste your money. Bob Dole wishes they would work, but like Bob Dole's wife Elizabeth, your loved one is just going to have to learn to like your 4" pindick."

  67. How many of the 6000 responses bogus? by GGardner · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So, the log has 6000 responses, with credit card info. I wonder how many of those 6000 are real, and how many are bogus or stolen credit card numbers from pissed-off spamees?

  68. Sigh.... Spam, what to make of it? by sllim · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I was reading everyones knee-jerk posts to this article.
    A few things stick out in my mind.

    Everyone seems to be asking 'Who would buy stuff like this?'.
    I always took the /. crowd to be smarter then the normal crowd, guess I was wrong.
    Do the math and draw your own conclusions. How much do you think they are paying for a CD of 1 million addresses? $25, $100? Does it matter?
    What is the percentage of sales they need to turn a profit?
    Not much.
    It doesn't take many people to make it worth there while to annoy all of us.
    When I was cold calling I was expected to set only 1 appointment for every 2 hours of work. My bosses were more concerned about the ratio of appointments to work time then they were to how many calls I blew through. Cold calling is cheap.
    Spam is cheaper.

    Then I saw a couple of duffuses that listed some people's real names and addresses.
    Way to go McFly. Do you have any understanding how much trouble you could be in? Lawsuit time.

    Then there is the mandatory 'Some people don't even belong on the internet' comment.
    What is the deal with you? You only pull your nose out of your linux to shove it up in the air and put down everyone around you. Got news for ya, the internet is for all of us.

    There is this part of me that supports laws to kill spamming. But that part is getting laughed at by the other part of me that knows damn well that spammers will move there servers overseas and the ones that stop spamming won't even be noticed. I personally don't even see the reason to make laws against spammers, too many laws in this country if you ask me.

    What I want to see more of is anti-spam tools at the user and ISP end. Seems to me that the solution to Spam is probably there.

    1. Re:Sigh.... Spam, what to make of it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn the difference between their there and they're. And I don't even use linux.

    2. Re:Sigh.... Spam, what to make of it? by thebatlab · · Score: 1

      Whoops, you trampled on Linux for a second there. Turned an informative, interesting post into bait for all the linux zealot mods out there to mark it as flamebait :)

    3. Re:Sigh.... Spam, what to make of it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /. is also filled with a bunch of cowards who mod people up/down not based on the content of their posts, but by whether or not they agree with the poster's opinion.

      This parent post shouldn't be modded as flamebait. Whoever got mod points is an obvious F--A**G.

  69. I bet... by useosx · · Score: 1

    Anyone wanna take bets on whether Braden Bournival is actually a (now really pissed off) friend of Sklivvz?

  70. jobs? by mblase · · Score: 5, Funny

    At least telemarketing provides jobs.

    So does pimping, but that doesn't mean I'm going to recognize it as an overall benefit to society.

    1. Re:jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luckily, the Dutch are more enlightened than you.

    2. Re:jobs? by Zebbers · · Score: 1

      I do.

  71. Free alternative to pills by Jonboy+X · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wanna grow your schlong? Do what I do: View pornography! Millions of satisfied customers report a dramatic increase in length, girth and firmness in just minutes, using this ancient time-tested technique.

    Disclaimer: Results may not last more than 5-10 minutes.

    --

    "In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total.loser." -Weird Al
    1. Re:Free alternative to pills by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

      Warning: Repeated use may result in hairy palms, blindness, and elevated vaseline bills.

      If any of these symptoms persist, go to http://goatse.cx or http://www.deltaburkenaked.com.

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    2. Re:Free alternative to pills by sn00ker · · Score: 1
      Millions of satisfied customers report a dramatic increase in length, girth and firmness in just minutes
      Minutes!? Sheesh. Talk about erectile dysfunction. You're obviously not a teenage boy anymore :P
      --
      "God, root, what is difference?" - Pitr, userfriendly
    3. Re:Free alternative to pills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? That's hardly erectile dysfunction. I'm sure your girlfriend (assuming you even have one) would appreciate if you weren't such a 'touch and go' sensitive youngin.

  72. What I don't understand... by Puk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...is why I get so much spam which is gibberish. I'm not talking about Portugese (about 1/2 my spam originates from Brazil), I mean actual nonsense, often without links, images, or attachments.

    What does someone hope to gain from this? Is it some secret code that will give me a giant viagra-enhanced penis and hot schoolgirls to go with it if I can figure it out? At least for normal spam I can see the motivation.

    example: I got mail today with the title "rmw oejectivity" and the body "cwdb". Why?!

    -puk

    1. Re:What I don't understand... by The+Bungi · · Score: 4, Informative
      Some of those are simple "pings" - if the message is not bounced then the address is valid and ripe for more spamming. This is a less sophisticated version of the image bug technique. That's why it's important to have a way to fake bouncing spam from your domain, although nowadays more ISPs are blocking that kind of thing.

      I read an article once (in Salon or Wired, I forget) about how some spammers simply feed on each other and rely on the fact that the message is sent, but not necessarily read or even (stupidly, as in this case) used to buy something. Some spams contain links to crap that doesn't even exist, and I don't mean the opt-out or anything - the website or telephone number or address are bogus, so even if you wanted to you can't actually buy anything from them.

      Weird.

    2. Re:What I don't understand... by robklaus · · Score: 1

      I've wondered the same thing. I guess its to change the 'byte signature' of the message to get around some types of automated filtering.

    3. Re:What I don't understand... by WEFUNK · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Interesting points - I will try to find that article - but I'm pretty sure that most of the illegible spams that I get aren't simply "pings" or spammers ripping off third parties "clients". One of my own theories for this kind of spam is that most spammers aren't just dumb -- they're really, really, really dumb (and/or really, really, really, and probably clinically, nuts).

      Although this article appears to indicate an exception, I've always assumed that most of the money made in spamming is by those that sell the spamming software and mailing lists to other (potential) spammers. I'd still bet that your average guilible spammer has spent a pretty penny on spam-ware, sent out millions of nearly illegible e-mails with no way to reply, and is still sitting back wondering why they aren't rich yet. There's probably pretty high turn-over and most eventually give up and start selling MLM with Amway or Primerica for the same reasons (the dream) with the same results (nothing).

      Additionally, there's also the spammers who are just plain crazy, like the guy who needs help to travel back in time. Many of these are probably even less coherent in their delusions (or maybe they're using a secret language).

      If there isn't a term already, someone should come up with a name for inept spam (maybe klik, prem, kam, or spork, named after the real world SPAM knock-offs - yes such things exist)...

      --
      My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
    4. Re:What I don't understand... by Maserati · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've started seeing things like [%LASTNAME] in what little spam gets looked at.

      if you think you have a tech support horror story, imagine trying to support the illiterate incompetent trying to figure out your spamware !

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    5. Re:What I don't understand... by sentientbeing · · Score: 1

      the gibberish you see in the subject header and the to/from headers are designed to fool Bayesian filters. These filters provide weighted probabilities that a message is spam by examining the content. Using gubberish words and random text instead of words like 'sex', 'porn' or 'teens' is an attempt to fool the filter with words it wont recognise from its active database.

      Paul graham has done some brilliant and sucessful work using Bayesian filters

      --

      ------
      beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
  73. 7 words! by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1

    Private right of action and statutory damages!
    A law that provides this will cut down on spam because spammers will be sued on a daily basis until they stop.

  74. Spam DOES pay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my previous incarnation, I worked for a hard core spammer (I could care less what people do with my code, as long as they pay me).

    One job was spending a day and a half building a small ecommerce site selling 'get rich on the net, quick' seminars on tape. $2000 for the top end package.

    They sent out 60,000 emails the first day and did $30,000 in sales.

    Spam does pay!

  75. Rollar Boys by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of "the rope" from Prayer of the Rollar Boys. It was a street drug that left the use sterile. Cheezy movie, but I love cheezy movies.

    --
    "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
    --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  76. What a riot. by nortcele · · Score: 2, Funny
    You could sell a canned vacuum this way. Enough people will bite at a product if it is marketed correctly.
    Yeah... (snicker). I bet if they bottled up some tap water and slapped a label on it, some schmuck would pay more for it than a can of pop.
    1. Re:What a riot. by treat · · Score: 1
      Yeah... (snicker). I bet if they bottled up some tap water and slapped a label on it, some schmuck would pay more for it than a can of pop.

      Do you know where else I can get guaranteed pure and good tasting water? Or perhaps I should just pay a little less and drink the beverage loaded with two kinds of poisons.

    2. Re:What a riot. by fred911 · · Score: 1

      silly wabit... everyone knows there's only one poison in beer..

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    3. Re:What a riot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yeah... (snicker). I bet if they bottled up some tap water and slapped a label on it, some schmuck would pay more for it than a can of pop.


      Do you know where else I can get guaranteed pure and good tasting water?

      Well, um, the TAP?
  77. Also in the logs by tarquin_fim_bim · · Score: 1

    is everone who considered it a smart move to enter my freaks list.

  78. Lies, damn lies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    This product works wonders!

    My girlfriend uses it, and she has a 5" clit!

  79. You may be right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.thedailybull.ca/article.php?id=158

  80. Is this really that surprising? by Thorgal · · Score: 1

    Oh great. Somebody learns that most people are idiots and this is supposed to be news? Just great.

    --
    "Man in the Moon and other weird things" - wfmh.org.pl/thorgal/Moon/
  81. Are they real orders? by taustin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There are a number of scripts (going by such names as "Formfucker") foating around to generate random (and totally bogus) orders by filling in spammers' forms.

    Can't help but wonder if this is the case here.

    1. Re:Are they real orders? by The+Wicked+Priest · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they didn't say to what extent they verified the list, which is a crucial point. But it's clear that they verified some entries; otherwise they wouldn't have that information about people's occupations, which presumably isn't requested on the order form. And they even got a quote from at least one of the suckers (the one about "As Seen on TV").

      --
      Share and Enjoy: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  82. Penis by carterhawk001 · · Score: 1

    I get two - three of these penis spams a day, despite my best efforts to get them stopped. i just want to go up to thier corporate HQ and tell them my penis is plenty big enouhg :)

    1. Re:Penis by iDrifter · · Score: 1

      Telling them won't be enough, you'll have to show them. And if they like what they see, you might be their poster boy;-)

      --
      This message was done on 100% recycled electrons.
  83. Real Life Slashdotting by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Someone already posted this guys address, so hopefully he will be receiving several tons of mail a day now. But the information I would REALLY like to get my hands on is the 6000 people on that list. I would like to conduct interviews with them to figure out the exact reasons (aside from small dicks) they bought, and why the typical spammer tricks didn't set off warning sirens.

    Once I have this information, I would like to give it to Spamhaus or some other organization, preferably one with an advertising budget, and have them do a spot on tv explaining the dangers of spam.

    Maybe the government should do a public service announcement about it. You see, the majority of people who buy this crap are not internet savvy, but you better believe they are television savvy.

    I think the FTC would be much better off spending its money to educate potential victims of spam than it would going after the actual spammers.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    1. Re:Real Life Slashdotting by jdunlevy · · Score: 1

      I think the FTC would be much better off spending its money to educate potential victims of spam than it would going after the actual spammers.

      Or (and this idea just came to me when reading this article; I'm not advocating it ... yet): what about making it illegal to place an order in response to an illegal (or fraudulent; e.g. with forged headers) bulk unsolicited e-mail? Make the people making these purchases subject to a fine of some percentage (maybe 100%) of what they pay the spammer. Basically penalize people for not doing the most basic checking up on who they're "buying" from...

    2. Re:Real Life Slashdotting by crapulent · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, I don't think the logic that most of the purchasers had was really all that unreasonable. Naturally, I would never order from a spammer but when you consider how humans think it's not that hard to see why this would be appealing.

      Take for example people that buy lottery tickets. Anyone with any common sense knows that it's a sucker's bet, but yet people still feel like they're buying some glimmer of hope. They think that fot such a small amount they're getting a chance at greatness, no matter how insignificant that chance may be.

      It's the same with the penis pills -- hardly anyone that orders them really truly believes they will do anything, but for $30 (or $50, whatever) the very slight chance that they just might possibly add just a tiny bit of length is worth the risk. It's the old "nothing to lose but a few bucks and plenty to gain" scenario.

      And if the product didn't involve spam per se, I'd say by all means knock yourself out. Unfortunately these people's "penis lottery tickets" mean that they perpetuate "spammer as profession", which should NOT be a viable means of doing business if everything was right with the world.

  84. You don't get, do you? by Councilor+Hart · · Score: 1

    You don't need a huge penis, you need one that's bigger then that of your neighbours. That way, all the women around will come to you and with you.
    Therefor spam will never stop, someone is always going to want a bigger one.
    ...
    Oh, btw, no insult intended to the /. crowd here.

  85. Fuck You by fire-eyes · · Score: 1

    On behalf of all sensible users on the internet, and myself, I'd like to say:

    FUCK YOU.

    Thanks.

    --
    -- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
  86. Logic is fleeting by stomv · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In principle, I agree with you. But, on the one hand, you argue that

    if I don't like what someone's saying on TV, I can change the channel

    implying that speech on television is "free speech" (since you have a way to avoid it). However, when refering to email, you write

    don't tell me I can simply hit the delete button - thats not something I should have to do.

    Does this imply that you shouldn't have to pick up the remote control and change the channel -- that the television should just read your mind? After all, in both cases (watching television and reading email) you are choosing to do so, and you are choosing to focus on a single instance (channel or particular email). If you don't like that particular instance, you either (a) change instances by using the remote control or the next/delete button, or (b) change mediums by turning the television or the email application off.

    What's the difference again? Like I said, I agree with you in principle, but your logical argument here on what constitutes "free speech" is weak.

    1. Re:Logic is fleeting by FrangoAssado · · Score: 2, Insightful
      After all, in both cases (watching television and reading email) you are choosing to do so, and you are choosing to focus on a single instance (channel or particular email)

      I don't think comparing email with TV is a good example. It would be better to compare email with telephone -- and no one thinks it is acceptable to receive tons of spams over telephone.

      Telephone spam is usually not a problem, though, because it's much more expensive than email (you have to pay people to make the calls, etc.).

      Also, I don't think anyone would argue that prohibiting someone to call me to advertise something hurts free speech. If you want to say something in public, go ahead and say it (or put it on a web site), but I don't have to listen to it, so please don't call me (or send me spam).

    2. Re:Logic is fleeting by gellenburg · · Score: 1

      There's a big difference than changing a channel and hitting a delete button on an Email.

      When I tune into a channel on TV, I am _requesting_ the program, and optionally commercials, to be pushed down to me.

      I initiated the act at watching the commercial or show.

      However, when UCE enters my Inbox, I had _no choice_. There's no "V-Chip" for a lot of UCE. It's not like I can tell my Email client, "Send me all UCE from Apple, because I like their products, but none from Microsoft because I can't stand those."

      However, with television, I can _choose_ to watch HBO and get no advertisements for penis enlargements or choose to watch UPN at 3am and be bombarded with increasing my "stamina & drive" to make my woman happy.

    3. Re:Logic is fleeting by justin.warren · · Score: 1

      The difference is quite simple: it costs me money to receive email from you. If you send email to 1 million people, the total cost for you is much less than the total cost for the 1 million recipients.

      I should not have to pay for your speech.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT after you.
    4. Re:Logic is fleeting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, it's definitely more related to phone than television because of TWO WAY COMMUNICATION. With TV, I pick a channel and let someone else dictate everything I see. On a phone, I give phone numbers (in my case) only to those I wish to call me. If someone else inadverdently gets my phone number, I tell them to stop calling and take me off any other lists I have because I do not wish to pay for THEM to call ME. That's not my responsibility, and it's not why I have a phone. At that point, fuck your free speech rights, what about my right to privacy?

      Also, what's very important is signal to noise ratio in your life. In your daily use of the phone, what if for every couple phone calls you made or received that you wanted, you had 25 calls come in that you didn't want. They were all ads. They all wasted your time. Further, you had to call each number back just to get yourself removed from the list, only to be put on OTHER lists.

      If this happened on your phone you would be pissed. Why? Because SOMEONE ELSE is using your phone more than you are, and they're using it to KEEP YOU FROM LEGITIMATE USE.

      If you'd be pissed about people doing it to your phone, why is your e-mail any different? Mine isn't.

      Spammers have a right to set up a business, yes. However, they are REQUIRED to respect my privacy. If they don't, I have a right to put them out of business by boycotting their product through ignoring, filtering, or lawsuits. Yay capitalism.

    5. Re:Logic is fleeting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FREE, my arse!!

      I, for one, have to PAY for my bandwidth. Every piece of "Do you have trouble getting wood?" shit that my mail client brings down is costing me.
      Like if TV ads were mandatory pay-per-view. Fuck that. You spam me, you owe me. I'm told organs are saleable these days....

    6. Re:Logic is fleeting by paradxum · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think that the issue is the Signal To Noise Ratio. On TV your guarenteed a specific Signal to Noise ratio by the TV exec's and the idea behind marketing. (If the noise is too high (i.e. too many commercials.) You will not watch that channel, and then you won't see their ads.) I think on tv our threashold is somewhere around %50. once it's at about %50 commercials we change the channel.

      Here's the problem with E-mail, The snr has no method of balance. The snr in e-mail (exp. in hotmail accounts not set to exclusive.) is WAY over %50.

      I have been able to keep the snr on my accounts pretty high, but it takes quite a bit of work to keep them that way.

    7. Re:Logic is fleeting by 1iar_parad0x · · Score: 1

      Let's firm that argument a bit. When I watch a television channel, I engage in an unwritten agreement (that's implied verbal consent, not expressed written consent :) ) that I am taking responsibility for all content viewed. When I open my email, I'm never given a chance to opt-out or opt-in. I am given no chance to decide. You know what channels are on your television before you turn it on (or you could find out). You have no idea what kind of email you've recieved without opening it. Also, television shows with explicit content have to warn their viewers. Most emails with explicit content, hide their deviance (albeit lamely) and even try to convience their readers of having other innocent intentions. Wow, I just talked like a lawyer. I feel dirty now. Dirty, like I just read some spam! What, I'm being served a notice by Hormel for my use of the word spam! I need a shower now!

      --
      What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean....
    8. Re:Logic is fleeting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this imply that you shouldn't have to pick up the remote control and change the channel -- that the television should just read your mind?

      You're being silly: using the channel changer is a central element of the interface. You can simply never navigate to Faux News Netwok and you never have to hear Mr. O'Reilly refer to Mexican nationals as "wetbacks" again.

      Not so with email and spam. A better analogy might be if O'Reilly were showing up on every channel screaming "wetbacks!" in the middle of your chosen program.

      As for freedom of speech, these jerks can simpy advertise their goods on Web sites -- you could then choose to tune in or not. Screaming in my mailbox all day is not a protected "freedom", any more than screaming in your kitchen window even though you could choose to close it. The legal term is "harassment", and needs to start being enforced as such.

    9. Re:Logic is fleeting by nalfeshnee · · Score: 1

      I disagree: the issue is not signal-to-noise but a question of who is addressing which audience, which to my mind is an important element of what the 'free' in free speech actually means.

      When I am being addressed via television, I am not being addressed specifically, hence it is free speech because it is said generally, non-specifically. The point about the telephone is also to be seen in this light: it is not that it is signal to noise (i might get too many calls I don't want), but that the telephone is a private medium, whilst the television is not.

      For this reason email spam is not protected by any free speech laws. I do NOT have the right to find out your email and then send you stuff, because then my audience is *captive*.

      I am perhaps not making complete sense, but this element of free as in 'said freely', in a 'public' sense, is important. This is an interesting area which is often overlooked, because many people see the point as only being 'I paid for my telephone, email, whatever, therefore they have no right to use it'. But there is a bigger, constitutional right at issue here which has nothing to do with onership. I have the right to be treated as an individual in my own private sphere, and spammers are treading all over this. Quite apart from anything else, the emails -- one should NOT forget -- are also highly denigrating to most individuals (either they offend women or anger men). Not all recipients of these spams are clued-up young male techies who see only the tech or funny side of the issue. In countries where hardcore pornography is actually illegal (kinda 'all muslim countries + britain) there would be considerable mileage in using THAT to stop spammers dead. You'd only need a few outraged senior citizens to do it.

      OK that's my 0.02 for today.

      Thanx,

      Nalfy

      --

      -- Despair is an operating system that ANY human being can run, sort of a psychological JAVA --

    10. Re:Logic is fleeting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's the difference: Television is a public, broadcast medium, which I may receive or not at my discretion. (I happen to choose "not", but that's beside the point.) If you have the means to produce a television broadcast, by all means, speak whatever you want. Nobody's forcing my (nonexistent) TV set to receive it -- I don't have to listen. Indeed, I would have to actively choose (by turning the TV on and picking the right channel) to do so.

      My private email is just that: mine and private. If I don't want your "speech" in my inbox, then it damn well better not be there. And with email, I don't have to actively choose to receive it: when you send it, you send it to my address.

      Actually, I would have to actively choose to receive your email, by adding you to the whitelist, but that's also beside the point: in fact, the whitelist shouldn't be necessary.

  87. Makes me wonder if democracy is such a good idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Makes me wonder if democracy is such a good idea.

    6,000 in one month - register them as a danger to our
    country.

  88. Same with Telemarketers by useosx · · Score: 2, Informative

    Telemarking created a lot of jobs...jobs which the federal do-not-call lists are jeopardizing. Not sure how I feel about it because the phone never stops ringing at my parents house because of them. Salon.com ran an article about it but the link is broken (provided here in case it gets fixed). Here's the Google cache of it.

    On a side note, I use Mail.app in OS X and the Junk filter is pretty damn good. I get 20+ spams a day and it only lets 3 or so in. Sometimes legit mail got lost and I'd have to dig it out of my Junk folder, but not anymore (because it "learns" over time). The updated Mail.app in 10.3 (Panther) is supposed to be even better, too.

    1. Re:Same with Telemarketers by William+Tanksley · · Score: 1

      Window-breaking also creates a lot of jobs, both for window-breakers and for glassmakers.

      It's harder to see the jobs it destroys, and even harder to see the lost opportunities. But they're still lost.

      The same for spammers. (Less so for telemarketers, since they're not actually charging the recipients to listen; but still true.)

      -Billy

    2. Re:Same with Telemarketers by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      What if you were getting so many calls that it was interfering with normal usage? I regularly have to empty my hotmail box or I'll lose real email. What about crashed servers from spam overload? I don't think telemarketers and spammers can be easily compared.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    3. Re:Same with Telemarketers by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1
      I am sorry, I hope I am misunderstanding you but are you saying because something allows some people to make a living it should be allowed regardless of what effect it has on others?

      Perhaps you wanna make it illegal to throw trash into wastebaskets? After all throwing it on the pavement means it has to be cleaned up by someone who can then support his family.

      I can think of a thousand more examples each more insane then the other if youre logic is applied.

      --

      MMO Quests are like orgasms:

      You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    4. Re:Same with Telemarketers by useosx · · Score: 1

      No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying anything. In fact, I re-read my post and I make no assertions whatsoever. I wasn't flamebaiting. All I do is state facts. In fact, I say "Not sure how I feel about it". Not sure why you're flaming me when my post was pretty benign.

      Also, I'm not quite sure how you got that I, or the author of the article, was advocating what you suggest. I'll try to summarize what, in fact, you are suggesting:

      1) That we should do away with all laws because they may have the remotest possibility of preventing someone from making a profit (this, in effect, would do away with all laws because you can make a profit doing just about anything). Incidentally, I believe the opposite. I think corporate America has too much power, but that is beside the point.

      2) Beyond doing away with the aforementioned laws, we should allow businesses to create new laws that will help them maximize profit (such as your trash example).

      As I said, I was making no argument in my post, just stating facts, but even if I was advocating against the do-not-call-lists law, and my logic was that it was because of all the lost jobs, the two above conclusions could in no way be drawn from that argument. Each case is particular, so you can't just assume I'm making blanket statements about all of humanity. I'll quote from the article and leave it at that:

      Spurred by an irritated public, politicians have signed the death notice for telemarketing. But the end of sales calls will deliver another blow to the staggering economy. ...

      Telemarketing is an enormous business that hires millions of people and contributes to billions in commerce every year, but it is suddenly reeling under what insiders describe as a politically expedient bit of regulation. It surprises and offends telemarketers that, of all the scourges we suffer, lawmakers made this one a priority. Telemarketing is an annoyance, but that's all it is, people in the industry insist. Unsolicited sales calls won't give you cancer or heart disease or make you fat. Telemarketing doesn't damage the environment. It doesn't cause car accidents. Telemarketers don't hurt kids or animals. They aren't suspected of harboring weapons of mass destruction. Yet politicians of every stripe are united behind the issue, and they've come up with a solution -- the do-not-call list -- that experts say will devastate telemarketing.

  89. Remember : What to do with a captured spammer? by necio_online · · Score: 1

    Hey, be careful. Remember the pool What to do with a captured spammer?.

    I am far away.

    --
    http://arhuaco.org/
  90. What kind of an idiot... by dllama · · Score: 1

    Wives and girl friends...perhaps?

  91. uhuh, yeah, that might work by froogger · · Score: 1

    ..if these companies are remotely serious about business. but they're not. as stated in the article - prosecuting frauds are hard to do. even though they figure they guy behind it all is a reformed neo-nazi (jewish mother, was it?), they guy to fall is a 19 yr old chess wizard who think he's smart. and how many of them aren't there out there?
    companies like that set up shop in a day, and I expect, close faster.
    no, I think the right approach should be to secure your servers (no relay, spamfilter), and seek out the evildoers with a cluebat.

  92. Suckers, Peeny Pills, Pr0n, Mortgagest, etc. by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I wonder how many of those alleged 6,000 are real orders. It would certainly be simple enough to clog these bastards right back again with bogus orders.

    Come to think of it, what a nifty idea. To bad I don't have access to a server I could perform such a feat from. ;-)

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Suckers, Peeny Pills, Pr0n, Mortgagest, etc. by Soulmender · · Score: 0

      I am amazed that people are not utilising the customer not present liability of the spammer on the credit card transactions.
      If transactions are refuted then the spammer gets no money.
      Weird, one would expect the hardcore anti-spamming crew to do something like that?

    2. Re:Suckers, Peeny Pills, Pr0n, Mortgagest, etc. by JayBlalock · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, that would pretty clearly be illegal, unless you were prepared to pay for every single bottle of UberPrick pills you put in an order for. If you got caught at it, you'd be in violation of at least two different sets of laws.

      --
      Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
  93. Re:Uh-oh PHEW! by Havokmon · · Score: 2, Funny
    There's now going to be about 6,000 very embarrassed men if these logs remain accessible.

    Good thing I ordered mine in June!

    --
    "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
  94. TABOO SEX = IGNORANT PUBLIC by nutznboltz · · Score: 1
    As long as sex is taboo:
    • An ignorant public will spend money on worthless products.
    • STD epidemics will flourish

    Can't talk about, therefor can't learn anything.

  95. That's too bad :-( by daviddennis · · Score: 1

    Cogentco's $1,000 for 100mbps is one heck of a deal, one I wish I could take advantage of. Even their $3,000 for 100mbps for service providers is pretty darn good.

    Pity they're so involved with spam ... and that they have heavy restrictions on what you can do with the bandwidth.

    The other problem is that you have to be in a CogentCo connected building, and most of them are really ugly places around Downtown LA. (At least here in Los Angeles).

    So that's really too bad about spam, since this looks like a great solution for inexpensive high bandwidth.

    D

    1. Re:That's too bad :-( by heli0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you want to use it to host a website you won't have any problems, just don't expect any other networks to accept email from you.

      Spam was only part of the problem, their customers have also been hijacking open proxies and CogentCo will do nothing about it. You can read the long history of their customers' abuses and their inaction at news.admin.net-abuse.email

      --
      Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
    2. Re:That's too bad :-( by billstewart · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they've got a nice deal. Their network is probably underconnected, so you may not get your whole 100 Mbps very often, but they're charging roughly the price other ISPs charge for a T1, and you'll probably get at least 1.5% of that 100 Mbps all the time and occasionally a lot more. Other ISPs' prices may have gone down a bit, but the closest other game in town is DSL service for ~$50-100 for a 1.5Mbps/384kbps connection or some of the SDSL stuff. If you're running a website, this is probably ok (at least as a backup), and if you're looking for an office internet feed, it's probably a good deal.

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    3. Re:That's too bad :-( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cogentco will give you the whole pipe; Every gosh darn bit of it; I'm involved with a company that has 2 1000mbit links and both can push the full bandwidth at all times.

      Just my two pennies from the anonymous people.

  96. Is it April again already? by meeotch · · Score: 5, Funny
    For once, it's actually worth R'ing the FA:
    Bournival refused repeated requests for interviews about his business. When approached for comment at a chess tournament in Merrimack, New Hampshire, last month, Bournival, who is a national-master-caliber player, ran away from a Wired News reporter.
    An investigation (registration to Salon.com required) last month revealed that Bournival's mentor and business partner is Davis Wolfgang Hawke, a chess expert and former neo-Nazi leader who turned to the spam business in 1999 after it became public that his father was Jewish.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    mitch

    1. Re:Is it April again already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really couldn't understand this "former neo-Nazi leader who turned to the spam business in 1999 after it became public that his father was Jewish". Why did he feel the need to turn to spam?

      Is spam something of a new age balm or soother?
      This guy is totally nuts( as like other spammers).

    2. Re:Is it April again already? by Maserati · · Score: 1

      I'd like to quote a former boss of mine:

      "All chess players are basically scum."

      He was a nationally-rated master himself.

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    3. Re:Is it April again already? by Sethus · · Score: 1

      So... you're telling me the Nazi's are to blame for Spam? Yet another crime against humanity!!!

      --
      Posting with out proof reading since 2001.
  97. Ticklers club by geekmetal · · Score: 1

    Someone implemented on the idea from Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels after all. Here is a link to the famous quote from the movie.

    --
    There are two kinds of egotists: 1) Those who admit it 2) The rest of us
  98. Re:Forget the pills - use patches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, now you can easily have Apache penis!

  99. Spam the spammer by JustKidding · · Score: 1
    How about we just flood the spammer with fake orders? Sometimes, you have to fill out a webform or reply to an email (no, i've never done it, just sometimes i actually read the email).
    Maybe we could build a distributed system to flood the spammers order system with lots and lots of fake orders, making it impossible for him (or her! that's disturbing) to cash in on the real orders, thereby removing the possibility to make a profit.

    Ofcourse, the cases where you'd have to call a particular number would be a bit more difficult, but i'm sure someone can come up with something.

  100. But... But... How? by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

    I am at a loss for words. But this reminds of of an article in this month's issue of Astronomy magazine:

    What is the stupidest astronomy question you can think of? How about this: "What are those bright things in the sky?" They're looking for competition with this question... Do you think the fucking retards who bought through spam could beat it?

    1. Re:But... But... How? by digitalhermit · · Score: 1

      What is the stupidest astronomy question you can think of? How about this: "What are those bright things in the sky?"

      Hey, Ma, what's that bright thing in the sky? Aaaiiiigggghhhh! I'm blind!

  101. All Negative Sum Jobs should result in unemploymnt by FreeUser · · Score: 1
    At least telemarketing provides jobs.

    So does pimping, but that doesn't mean I'm going to recognize it as an overall benefit to society.


    Absolutely. There are a number of professions in which every practitioner deserves to be unemployed and (preferably) starving on the street. Some that come immediately to mind:
    • Dictators
    • Hit men
    • Spammers
    • Telemarketers
    • Purveyors of Reality & Train Wreck TV
    • Terrorists
    • Secret Police & their agents
    • Preists, popes, cardinals, vicars, and other misc. spreaders of religious dogma and deception
    • Intellectual Property Attorneys (Not all attorneys, just all IP attorneys)
    ...to name just a few.

    Some jobs offer an inherently negative value to the overall community and society, even if their immediate value to themselves and those who employ them is a positive. IP attorneys who shake down inventors for having violated submarine patents filed by someone with a vague idea and no idea, or intention, of how to actually impliment it are one example. Darl McBride is another (IP attorneys trying to hijack and heist the hard public work of others through false claims, FUD and innuendo). Osama bin Laden is a third example, while telemarketers scamming retirees out of their life savings are a fourth. Spammers certainly fit in this category as well.
    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  102. Left their site open by wowbagger · · Score: 1

    OK, so a spammer left his logs showing who ordered from him open.

    Did anybody get a copy of the logs - I sense a chance to put some chlorine in the gene pool - let's locate these morons and insure that their penises don't work for reproduction.

    In fact, what a great way to improve the breed - create a pill that actually does increase the size of the user's penis (so no false advertising claims), but first renders them irrevokably sterile.

    (Note to humor impared: This post is a joke. I would not condone damaging or killing somebody purely because they are stupid.)

    1. Re:Left their site open by timerider · · Score: 1
      I would not condone damaging or killing somebody purely because they are stupid.


      As the darwin award shows, they do it themselves.
  103. Understanding the economics of direct marketing by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 5, Insightful
    You can begin to get an idea of the terrible challenge that spam presents us if you consider the economics of direct mail marketing - that is, sending advertisements in printed letters via snail mail.

    I used to work for a small software company where most of our sales were made through direct mail. I think our gross sales peaked at about $2 million one year while I was working there in the mid-90's.

    Each direct mail piece sent to a prospect costs hard cash to send, for printing, postage, labor and mailing list rental. Yet it was our experience that a response rate of 0.5% was sufficient to yield a profit.

    Once you have identified a profitable offer and a mailing list that's rich with customers who respond to direct mail, you have a license to print money. That's why you probably each of you reading this receive two or three pieces of direct mail every day.

    The following two comments I posted at Kuro5hin discuss this in great detail:

    Now, if you consider that the cost of sending spam is insignificant when the spammer can hijack an open relay, you will understand that spam will never stop until purchasers stop responding to spam.

    Simply installing filters on your own machine won't help. The people who purchase sexual enhancement products over the Internet don't know from spam filters.

    I think the end to spam will come only when every ISP and mail hosting service installs filters that are enabled by default. Only then will the response rate of spam be reduced to the point that it's no longer economical to send it.

    I think it's likely the day will come when ISPs will be forced to install filters that cannot be disabled. Possibly this will be ordered by various national governments.

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
    1. Re:Understanding the economics of direct marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think spam won't stop until all ISP's quit charging a flat rate and charge by the megabyte. Filters just don't work well enough. My ISP filters spam which catches most of it, yet I still get 20 or 30 spam emails a day. And my Mozilla junk mail filter filters out legitimate emails, so I'm not convinced of the efficacy of filters.

  104. Lame info schemes by swb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A friend and I actually DID go through with a make money fast scheme. Back in '92 when the Internet was really starting to get buzz, we put an add in Popular Science promsing "Valuable information on the Internet just $10" or something similarly hyped. What they got was some photocopied BS we downloaded ourselves; we even reduced it and double-side copied it to keep our costs down.

    We figured it was totally legit since, if you read our ad carefully, we did provide exactly what we promised.

    I think we got about 10 requests, which we fulfilled, and we ended up basically breaking even or even losing money.

    1. Re:Lame info schemes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow! Are you the kid whose parents found that his closet was full of money!? I get email about you all the time!

    2. Re:Lame info schemes by leviramsey · · Score: 1

      The classic instance of that approach:

      Put an ad in classified sections for a guaranteed method of getting rich on the stock market:

      Buy high, sell low

      I suppose you could make even more money by patenting that business model, though...

    3. Re:Lame info schemes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh...

      Aw, nevermind.

      Yeah. Great model.

    4. Re:Lame info schemes by fred911 · · Score: 1

      isn't that "buy high, sell higher"

      rrrrrr

      possibly just sell short.... ..so confuzed, so 90's

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    5. Re:Lame info schemes by leviramsey · · Score: 1
      Buy high, sell low

      D'oh! Preview before posting... that'll learn me not to post to /. while drunk...

    6. Re:Lame info schemes by will_die · · Score: 1

      Stuff like this still happen. Go to ebay and enter any MMORPG, SWG is popular since it is new, and you will get a bunch of theses "Secret make endless money" deals for $15-$20.
      Someone posted one of these, the ideas they gave were old and while you could make money from them you could make more from just doing what everyone else was doing.

  105. Is this for real? by Horizon_99 · · Score: 1

    I mean who the fuck gives their profession when ordering penis pills?

    Other customers included the head of a credit-repair firm, a chiropractor, a veterinarian, a landscaper and several people from the military. Numerous women also were evidently among Amazing Internet's customers.

  106. You are an idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ISPs already run mail servers that require validation in various ways to send mail through, and often to receive mail as well. The reason why your idea is moronic is that how you choose which signatures are valid is just as broken as a spews or orbs list.

    1. Re:You are an idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er? I didn't see the A.C. say anything about how the signatures were chosen, or the details of the protocol! There are research efforts in this direction.

      Consider: It could be the sender signing with the receiver's public key - transient signatures as "stamps" - in addition to your email address, give out a public key "stamp" than can be revoked at the drop of a hat - and -this is important- make it a different key for each email address recipient. First spam you receive with that key, you propogate the key revocation, and whammo! your mail server will not recognise that stamp anymore.

      But this requires two things: (1) that the mail protocol be changed to have intrinsic understanding of crypto signatures (no point in the system if you're not going to save bandwidth) (2) Some storage on the mail server. Note that the propogation of key revocation would be somewhat limited in this scenario, since other mail servers are unlikely to store many keys other than their own customers. But it would still eliminate most spam, which would be enough to stop most spam being sent.

  107. MOD PARENT TROLL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spews.org provides valuable (FREE) service to people who are sick and tired of spam.

    Somethingawful on the other hand, is a driven by a community of hateful teenagers, and their leader Rich Kyanka who's the biggest money grabbing whore on the internet.

    1. Re:MOD PARENT TROLL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Spews.org provides valuable (FREE) service to people who are sick and tired of spam.

      Somethingawful provides humorous (FREE) articles for people who are sick and tired of reading news feeds like slashdot.

      Oh, but those teenagers are so hateful it brings a tear to my politically correct eye when I think of the bruised sensibilities they have left in their wake!

  108. Spammers helping the economy? by crb11 · · Score: 1

    Another perspective is that the amount of money being pumped back into the economy by so-called unsolicited commercial e-mail is nothing to scoff at
    ... but how does it compare to the cost of the infrastructure needed to send them all in the first place?

  109. Spammers must ... by SoSueMe · · Score: 1

    ....be taking a shitload of their own pills.
    'Cause they are about the BIGGEST PRICKS around.

    Not to be confused with Darl McBride. He's just one of the biggest DICKS in recent memory.

  110. My new business plan! by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 5, Funny

    Variation: subscription service for intelligence improvement pills. Charge $9.95 for a month's supply. When you get smart enough to stop sending me $9.95 a month for sugar pills I have proof that they obviously worked.

    --
    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
    Ben
    1. Re:My new business plan! by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 1

      Isn't that the idea behind Ginko Baloba?

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    2. Re:My new business plan! by Jay+L · · Score: 3, Funny

      When you get smart enough to stop sending me $9.95 a month for sugar pills I have proof that they obviously worked.

      That's an ancient Jewish joke...

      On a train in czarist Russia, a Jew is eating a whitefish wrapped in paper. A man sitting across the aisle begins to taunt him. Finally, he asks: What makes you Jews so smart?" "All right," replies the Jew. "I guess I'll have to tell you. It's because we eat the heads of whitefish." "Well if that's the secret," the man says, then I can be as smart as you are." "That's right," says the Jew, "and in fact I have an extra whitefish head with me. You can have it for five kopecks." The man pays for the fish head and begins to eat it.

      An hour later, the train stops at a station for a few minutes. The man leaves the train and then comes back. "Listen, " he says, "you sold me that whitefish head for five kopecks but I just saw a wholewhitefish at the market for three kopecks." "See," replies the Jew, "you're getting smarter already."

    3. Re:My new business plan! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      On a train in czarist Russia,

      Whitefish head eats YO..AAARRGGGHGHHHH...

      fx: flies over the side of the bridge of death

      Seriously, though, that's a great joke.

  111. Re:Forget the pills and Lotion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can tell you from personal experience that pills and this newfound lotion DONT work. Trust me.

    But dont worry I can help you, I am an engineer. I pondered long and hard until I am cam up with a solution. We simply cannot change who we are. However, for those of you who are a little 'bit' of a lesser man, you can change who you are with!

    Send me your email address today, so I can hook you up with one of our Little Ladies. They are 3/5 the size of a normal woman in every aspect. Don't just take my word for it, read what our satisfied customs have to say:

    "The real beauty, other than the Little Ladies of course, is how generally relative we all are"
    Al Einstein,
    Iowa City, IA

    So act now and send your info to:

    small@hands.com

  112. Did Anyone Mirror The List? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The site has pulled the list of 6,000 people who supported that spammer with money. Does anyone have a mirror?

  113. To quote Dilbert by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    "If we're so smart, why do we work here?"
    "Intelligence has less practical application than you think."

    Spam does not require someone to be smart, it requires one to lack certian kinds of ethics and to be willing to live with persecution. Personally, I wouldn't do it. Even if you gaurenteed me that I'd make millions, I still wouldn't do it. Partially because I feel it is wrong but also because I wouldn't want to be a social outcast. None of my friends or family would have anything to do with me if I was in a profession like that. All the toys in the world don't make up for human relationships (in my book at least).

    1. Re:To quote Dilbert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's ok, just move somewhere where you're not known, and start over. People do it all the time, without the benefit of millions of dollars in the bank account.

    2. Re:To quote Dilbert by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      Well see, I like my friends, I don't want new ones. Also a family isn't something you can just replace. My parents are my parents. Now maybe you're a reculse that doesn't care for social contact, that's fine, but I and most others are not. No amount of money would make it worht it to me.

  114. WE HAVE IT ALL WRONG-- by DrDebug · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Instead of going after the spammers, why don't we get wise and go after the people who hire the spammers?

    After all, behind every spammer is someone trying to hire them.

    Make it against the law to employ a spammer!

    Get an undercover 'hit squad' to buy some of these products, which will eventually lead them to the people hiring the spammers, and then fine the hell out of them.

    After a few rounds of this, once word gets out, nobody will hire a spammer again. Spamming, as a business, eventually dies.

    What do you all think about that? Too simplistic?

  115. Like my Daddy told me... by karlandtanya · · Score: 1

    If you sling enough sh|t on the wall, some of it's gotta stick.

    --
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
    1. Re:Like my Daddy told me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you sling enough sh|t on the wall, some of it's gotta stick.

      My pa done told me that if'n ya nail enough niggers to the wall, some of 'em's gonna stick.

  116. The New War on Drugs by tabdelgawad · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Did the writeup on this story remind anyone else of the expensive, ongoing, and utterly ineffective war on drugs?

    The war on drugs in the US deals with the problem almost entirely as a 'supply' issue. Decades of failure should convince anyone that you can't solve what is essentially a 'demand' issue by stifling 'supply'. It seems that spam is no different ...

    The question is, do you go with a 'just-say-no' campaign to educate email consumers about spam, or do you accept spam as a (legitimate) fact of life, and work on (government and self) regulations to make it manageable?

    --
    Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
    1. Re:The New War on Drugs by Mike+A. · · Score: 1
      To my mind, there is, ultimately, one thing and only one thing truly wrong about spam: that the sender does not bear the costs.

      If we could make it so that sending email costs a penny per ten, I wouldn't feel the need for any further spam regulations at all.

      --

      --
      Do I look like I speak for my employer?
    2. Re:The New War on Drugs by boogy+nightmare · · Score: 1

      Whenever i see sometihng like this i always remember the immortal Bill Hicks

      'How long has the wwar on drugs been going on for.....years. Do you know what that means, that the government is losing........ to a bunch of dropouts... that are high hehehehe'

      --
      Kingdom of Loathing (www.kingdomofloathing.com) Addicted is me
    3. Re:The New War on Drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that a cost per send never stopped the unsolicited advertising you get in your snail-mail box. And your solution doesn't have any "no circulars" provision like we do with snail-mail.

  117. Are they legitimate orders though? by kevin42 · · Score: 1

    Last fall I had my credit card number lifted from a small website I ordered some electronic parts from. They maxed out the card very fast, and many of the charges turned out to be for places selling penis enlargment products, and things of that sort. As it turned out, these items were shipped to other victims of credit card fraud as I found out when some packages arrived for me. I tracked the source down and found that they had used a different stolen credit card to ship items to me. I'm guessing this was a sort of calling card left by the morons^H^H^H^H^H^H thiefs who stole my card.

    1. Re:Are they legitimate orders though? by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Last fall I had my credit card number lifted from a small website I ordered some electronic parts from. They maxed out the card very fast, and many of the charges turned out to be for places selling penis enlargment products, and things of that sort.

      Given that some of them earn $60 a pop commission for each order placed, it's no wonder your card was maxed out. These scammers simply take stolen credit cards and rack up the orders and, therefore, their commissions.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  118. Computers are getting too easy to use by msobkow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I always thought that people gullible/uneducated enough to fall for spam would also be too uneducated to run a computer well enough to handle the email in the first place.

    Guess we've done too good a job of making them easy to use...

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  119. Remember this guy? by emtboy9 · · Score: 1

    Remember Alan ?? Now if we can just get the home addresses of the responsible parties mentioned in this latest article, they too can learn the power of the Slashdot Effect.

    --
    "Our funds have never taken part in toxic or death spiral convertible financings of any sort" -BayStar's managing partne
  120. Mod Parent Insightful! by Renderer+of+Evil · · Score: 0, Troll
    In short, SomethingAwful's operators specifically encouraged criminal activities and abuse of the network. Reportedly, readers of the flooded USENET group did the right thing in response -- rather than counterattacking with a flood of their own, they reported the criminal activity to the offending user's sites (including universities).
    This is exactly what happened. The actions of SomethingAwful are downright criminal.
  121. SPAM macro expansion misfiring + more by sonicattack · · Score: 2, Funny

    I seriously hate spam. Really. But a few good moments has been cast upon me sifting through Mozilla's "JUNK"-folder.

    A fraction of the tens of thousands of spam letters I've received the last three years are quite funny. (Being a former network administrator at an IT-company handling domain registrations, my address is on a _lot_ of spam lists.) Today I still receive at least a hundred per day.

    Funny spam #1, with a personal touch:

    Subject: Get Null@NullNull.com

    [graphic image saying "Be who you are"]

    Hi Null,

    Chances are you'll switch ISPs in the next year. Or possibly change jobs.

    [...]

    Avoid the hassle, and always stand out with your own personalized e-mail address:
    Null@NullNull.com Now that's unforgettable!

    Click here to get Null@NullNull.com now.
    -----

    Mmm. Just don't forget to expand those macros right (or, preferably, just don't spam me at all). Null@NullNull.com. Yep, that's personal. "Be who you are", indeed.

    Funny spam #2: This is a weird one. Someone offering an award for anyone finding some really neat devices, like:

    "The mind warper generation 4 Dimensional Warp Generator # 52" and "The special 23200 or Acme 5X24 series time transducing capacitor with built in temporal displacement. Needed with complete jumper|auxiliary system"

    Here this letter can be found in its entirety.


    Not to mention the infamous "INCREASE YOUR EJACULATION BY 631%" pills. I don't want to know how they came up with that number.

    Anyhow, in my IMAP folder, the funniest will stay preserved for the future, where things like these are history ("Granddaddy, we saw a spammer in the museum today. It was really ugly!").

  122. References, anyone? by Doctor+Hu · · Score: 1
    ... Sayeth Wired: "Do the math and you begin to understand why spammers are willing to put up with the wrath of ... federal regulators. ..."
    Can Wired - or indeed anyone - give any constructive suggestions about how this alledged 'wrath' could be invoked and initiated?

    Tracking the money collected might just perhaps be a start[1].

    [1]Math is hard. - Barbie-Doll.

  123. Indeed by Kjella · · Score: 4, Funny

    Apparently, there is a small but significant range in which you're smart enough to use a computer, but too dumb to know what to do with it.

    It used to be called AOL, but I think the segment is expanding...

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  124. Re:All Negative Sum Jobs should result in unemploy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do't foet trolls.

  125. Re:All Negative Sum Jobs should result in unemploy by BobTheLawyer · · Score: 1

    Great post.

    The idea that anything that creates jobs or money is automatically a Good Thing is hilariously stupid.

    (I'm an IP attorney, but the English kind and we're all cute and cuddly)

  126. Those pills don't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I prefer the Swedish Penis Pump myself.

  127. put a bullet in their heads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take all the hackers, spammers you can find, kidnap them and put bullets in their heads.

    Bet peeps will think 2x about hacking or spamming...

    no more spam!

  128. Question? Has anyone ever seen a Penis enlarged by anantherous+coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    On TV?!!!

    Wouldn't the FCC be a bit concerned with that

  129. SomethingAwful is hosted on a crime-ridden ISP... by Dimensio · · Score: 1

    ...and cogentco doesn't want to get rid of their known criminals. It's hardly my fault that SomethingAwful is hosted on an ISP from which I will never want to accept mail.

    If shutting down spamhavens involves hurting a few "innocents" who are giving money to the spam supporters, then I don't care.

  130. Re:Makes me wonder if democracy is such a good ide by The+Wicked+Priest · · Score: 1

    The 6000 idiots uncovered here would be handily outvoted by the spam-haters of America, who are known to number in the millions. As I recall, surveys show that a majority of respondents want spam banned. So, rest easy; democracy isn't falling apart just yet. Not because of that, at least.

    --
    Share and Enjoy: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  131. Publish the list! by pj2541 · · Score: 1

    Why didn't the article mention names of the customers? It seems to me that if we can't discourage the spammers, we should discourage the customers, and embarrasing the h--- out of them seems a good start.

    If the story gets around that so-and-so had his name published as a result of buying from a spammer, maybe people will think twice about buying, and we'll make spam less profitable (or hopefully kill it altogether.)

  132. Another thing... by Dimensio · · Score: 1

    Another perspective is that the amount of money being pumped back into the economy by so-called unsolicited commercial e-mail is nothing to scoff at, and perhaps legislating it in some tolerable form such as limiting a company to one commercial message per person per day would create a new legitimate business method in this country.

    Are you seriously suggesting that I should have to wade through the thousands of e-mail advertisements sent to me every day by every single "legitimate" business on the Internet, effectively legalizing the theft of billions of dollars from unwilling recipient IPSs per year?

    No. The only "legitimate" form of e-mail marketing is confirmed opt-in. Sending advertising e-mail without the prior permission of the recipient is spamming, and the "business" that does this should have their servers nuked off of the Internet.

  133. Maybe someone can take the domains away because... by FauxReal · · Score: 1

    My brother had a problem with a domain squatter who took his domain from him when he forgot the registration was about to expire. He contacted the registrar and they said since the registration info of the squatter was fake (phone # & address), if they did not respond within a week to an email they would revoke the domain and he could have it back. So, since all registration info is fake... is it not possible for someone to complain the registrar and then take over since there's no way to get a response from completely fake info?

  134. Could Shame Kill Spam? by pdrome4robert · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What if someone used spam to fight spam? They could send spam to collect the e-mail addresses of responders. Then posted those e-mail addresses to a public forum. It wouldn't decrease spam initially, but it might have a damping effect. A recipient would not know if their response would get them pills or a world of hurt.

  135. FTC resources by Jerebus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Federal Trade Commission said there is no proof that the pills work as advertised. But the FTC does not have the resources to press a case against such companies, according to spokesman Richard Cleland.
    What exactly do they have the resources for then? I mean it seems to me this is just the kind of thing the FTC was created for...

  136. Consider why the price is low... by Dimensio · · Score: 1

    The price is low because the real estate sucks.

    Also, those "restrictions" don't seem to apply to sending out unsolicited commercial e-mail, nor do they apply to committing various computer crimes, such as illegally hijacking third party web proxies.

  137. I'm curious how they process credit cards by AssFace · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I know how to get a domain name with false info - no biggie.

    I know how to get/use a PO Box with a different or not real name - no biggie.

    I know places that will colocate or rent out a server and they won't ask questions about what goes on via the net connection - as long as you pay their higher rates.

    So we have the server, we have the address, we have the, and we have a domain name.

    Anyone can make up something to sell - fine.

    But then you have to be able to take in the credit card info, process it, have that money go into a bank that allows that sort of thing and then keep that money.
    That requires a bank account, which now post 9/11 requires a lot of hassle and proof of id to setup - let's assume they set that up prior to 9/11.
    But no credit card processing system I can think of (And more importantly the merchant account that puts it into the bank) will allow you to do something like this.
    It would keep/block your funds if it even let you set it up in the first place.

    I'm truly curious how these guys are getting CC processing if they aren't actually delivering the product that they are advertising.

    Even if they are just trying to say "we are back ordered, just wait" and using that to get more money and then eventually taking the money out of the account and just fleeing to the Virgin Islands.... Even then - a bank won't let you take out $300K+ and just leave with it - there is a lot of paperwork involved there...

    I'm really curious on this one.

    --

    There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
    1. Re:I'm curious how they process credit cards by AssFace · · Score: 1

      I didn't read the last little bit.

      Looks like they were fufilling orders for awhile.
      And then aren't more currently now.

      And it looks like they probably use paypal - which I find interesting since PayPal is 1) notoriously Nazis about what they will allow, and 2) notorious for taking your money by locking up the account once it either goes "too high" or grows "too fast"

      --

      There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
  138. gotta be profitable by ArCaNe50 · · Score: 1

    My friend is living proof that spammers make money and he is the reason why they spam in the first place. I had to explain to him that if nobody clicks spam then no one would send it because they would not get any orders. However he sees a pr0n like and clicks it. I had to slap him in the hand and tell him no;-) Everyone should tell their friends this.

  139. Well, that's the model. by softspokenrevolution · · Score: 1

    Well, the whole point of Spam is to send out your little advert (or whatever) to as many people as humanly (well, as electronically) possible. Now, taking the number of stupid people there are in the world (this is a very high number, especially in these here United States, no offense but it's true). Then cross reference that with how many people have the internet (tens, perhaps hundreds of millions in the US alone).

    This brings us to one conclusion, 6,000 seems awfully low.

    In all reality, spam is the carpet bombing of advertising. Sure it causes a lot of collateral damage, but it gets your objective cleared without any need for 'market research' or 'targeted marketing'.

  140. Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels by nicholasharbour · · Score: 1

    Either that ripped of the movie or visa versa. But since that is nothing more than internet folk lore, I would bet that it ripped of the movie. One great movie BTW.

    --

    Nearly half of all people are below average
    1. Re:Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels by tcr · · Score: 1

      I remember someone mentioning the scam to me about a decade before the movie was released...

      --


      Information wants to be beer.
  141. If you have a better solution... by Dimensio · · Score: 1

    ...then present it. Come up with a means to convince cogentco to dump their spammers other than the SPEWS method. I'm sure that e-mail admins everywhere would love to hear about it so that they can stop having whiny little snots bitching that it's so "unfair!" that no one wants SomethingAwful.com's mail packets because they are comming from a cesspit of an ISP.

    1. Re:If you have a better solution... by Cheffo+Jeffo · · Score: 1

      "then present it"

      "For example, what's so hard about allowing folks in a blacklisted netblock to send an afadavit stating that they will not spam from their alotted IP addresses, and to notify SPEWS if their IP block changes? "

      Uh ... he did ... and, while I would like for CogentCo to drop their spammers, it isn't alright to hold a gun to the head of legitimate customers to get them to do it for us.

      Cheers,

      JAKD

    2. Re:If you have a better solution... by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      That doesn't fix the problem where he's still giving money to a company that enables, through provided services, people to break the law and tolerating said lawbreaking even after it has been brought to their attention rather than disconnecting the identified lawbreakers.

  142. Was that before 98? by hendrix69 · · Score: 1
    Ummm... you sure you came up with that scheme in high-school? You sure you didn't just plagerize Guy Ritchie?

    TOM: Listen to this one then; you open a company called the Arse Tickler's Faggot Fan Club. You take an advert in the back page of some gay mag, advertising the latest in arse-intruding dildos, sell it a bit with, er . . . I dunno, `does what no other dildo can do until now', latest and greatest in sexual technology. Guaranteed results or money back, all that bollocks. These dills cost twenty-five each; a snip for all the pleasure they are going to give the recipients. They send a cheque to the company name, nothing offensive, er, Bobbie's Bits or something, for twenty-five. You put these in the bank for two weeks and let them clear. Now this is the clever bit. Then you send back the cheques for twenty-five pounds from the real company name, Arse Tickler's Faggot Fan Club, saying sorry, we couldn't get the supply from America, they have sold out. Now you see how many of the people cash those cheques; not a single soul, because who wants his bank manager to know he tickles arses when he is not paying in cheques!

    Lock stock script

    --
    The power of Christ compiles you!
  143. The Freedom of Speech Issue by gbulmash · · Score: 5, Informative
    Some here have brought up the freedom of speech issue in defense of spam.

    Freedom of speech is not absolute, and the "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" example is only one of the most simplistic restrictions.

    Let's take a quick look at prohibitions of Freedom of Speech that have been upheld by the courts.

    Noise Ordinances: Yes, the Nazis must be allowed to march through Skokie, but not down a residential street at 2 a.m. on a school night. Courts have consistently upheld that protected speech can be limited to specific places at specific times so as not to constitute an undue burden of noise or disruption on the public.

    Property Rights: Your right to be heard does not include a right to come on my property, against my wishes, to speak to me. A good example is when ACT UP! invaded a church during services and started shouting "you're killing us" as part of a protest against the Catholic Church's policies. Had they kept it on the sidewalk in front of the church, it would have remained a legal, protected protest. When they entered the church, they became criminals and were arrested for trespass.

    Unsolicited Advertising: Opt-out is very supported by the courts. After one telephone call or junk postal mail, if I provide you with proper notification, you may not make another unsolicited call or send me another unsolicited advertisement by post. If you do, I may sue you. The law gets even more restrictive regarding unsolicited advertising by fax, requiring opt-in.

    Violence: Incitement to riot is not protected. Advocating the violent overthrow of the government is not protected. Using speech intended to goad someone into a physical altercation is not protected. To take the shouting "fire" in a movie theater example a step further... shouting "what are ya, some kinda faggot" in a crowded redneck bar is not protected speech.

    Fraud: Speech intended to defraud me out of services, property, or money is not protected.

    Slander & Libel: Slanderous or libelous speech is not protected.

    Protection of Children: It is illegal to sell pornography to children. Though it is protected speech, its distribution can be restricted to a certain age group.

    Commercial Speech: You can be forced to warn people your product is dangerous, tell people how much fat or sodium it contains, etc. Commercial speech is MUCH more restricted and burdened with rules and regulations than political, religious, or artistic speech.

    Broadcast Censorship: Ever seen hardcore porn during prime time on the networks? Of course not. The Supreme Court ruled that since radio/television waves enter your home unbidden, they can be regulated much more restrictively than print media.

    CONCLUSION

    This isn't a comprehensive list of the legal restrictions on free speech. It's just some of the major ones. There are little ones (remember that DeCSS was found not to be protected speech), and even coersions (*legally* withholding funds or licenses from groups that exercise their first amendment rights in a manner the government does not like).

    So don't argue that spam is an exercise of free speech. Spam is commercial, it violates the property rights of its recipients, and is subject at bare minimum to the same restrictions set on phone and postal solicitations.

    Of course my favorite quote on free speech is from Hubert Humphrey: "The right to be heard does not include the right to be taken seriously." - Greg

  144. Re:SomethingAwful is hosted on a crime-ridden ISP. by Cheffo+Jeffo · · Score: 1

    "If shutting down spamhavens involves hurting a few "innocents" who are giving money to the spam supporters, then I don't care."

    Why is it that geeks always tout the rights of the individual over the masses UNLESS the individual's rights are being trampled on to fight SPAM (and I'm talking about the innocents, not the SPAMMERS)?

    We're all too happy to battle against legislation/regulation that leaves gaping loopholes for child pornographers (I wonder how much karma I'm going to burn for that?), but if a legitimate, honest Netizen happens to live in the same IP block as a spammer (and we're talking about much more than CogentCo here), then *the innocent guy* should burn in hell ?

    The point that was made about SPEWS is that the general blacklist goes too far and there is no mechanism for the innocent to protect themselves (until such time as we can all register blocks directly...).

    *IF* the folks behind SPEWS made allowances for good netizens to be whitelisted out of a blacklisted block, that would be another matter entirely.

    THIS behaviour is no less despicable than that of the spammer -- you are declared guilty, sentenced and the only way out is for you to get rid of all spammers using your service provider. And, most of the time, that is beyond your control.

    Cheers,

    JAKD

  145. Creating HTML E-mail? by BigBlockMopar · · Score: 1

    Those are probably bogus emails to harvest valid emails to sell. Usually they put a 1x1px image in the mail so they know who read it and who did not, then they sell those addresses as "1million valid addresses, only $99.99!!!"

    Now, I'm gonna sound like a luddite, but there's a good reason. I *hate* HTML e-mail.

    Having said that, there are times when I'd like to be able to embed an image to be grabbed from a remote server so that I can determine when a user is online.

    I've never looked into creating HTML e-mail more than idly playing with the settings in Eudora (yeah, I run Windows 2000 on my primary workstation, Linux and the BSDs on the others). It seems that Eudora 5.2 won't allow it, unless I'm missing something.

    Any pointers?

    --
    Fire and Meat. Yummy.
  146. Re:And they don't even have to code anything by aligma · · Score: 1

    ... because it was coded by the open source community ;) I heard about one of those pump and dump schemes before, from a company called SCO.

  147. Obligatory Office Space Quote... by taernim · · Score: 1

    Tom: You know there are people in this world who don't have to put up with all this shit? Like that guy that invented the pet rock. You see, that's what you have to do. You have to use your mind and come up with some really great idea like that and you never have to work again!

    Michael: I don't think the pet rock was really such a good idea.

    Tom: The guy made a million dollars! Y'know, I had an idea like that once.

    Peter: Really? What was it, Tom?

    Tom: Well, all right. It was a Jump to Conclusions mat. You see, it would be this mat that you would put on the floor and it would have different conclusions written on it that you could jump to.

    Michael: That is the worse idea I've ever heard in my life, Tom.

    Samir: Yes, it is horrible.

    Tom: Ah, look. I, I gotta get outta here. I'll see you guys later, if I still have a job.

    --
    "PC Load Letter? What the $@#% does that mean?!"
  148. Hehe... by Peterus7 · · Score: 0
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Heh heh heh heh heh hehe...

    Oh wait... This isn't a joke...

    Oh my god... I'm sorry...

  149. Signal / Noise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the signal to noise ratio makes a big difference. My email is over 98% spam. If I didn't have a filter on it, it wouldn't be worth it for me to keep my email address.

    Does Mr. Big Dicks have the right to speak so much that I lose a useful channel of communication? Should I be forced to use the telephone and post office because he needs to advertise at a level that totally drowns out all other corresponance? I don't think so.

    If 98% of tv were crap and advertisements, I wouldn't bother with tv anymore. Oh, wait, I don't. Nevermind.

  150. It might be real by nullard · · Score: 1

    That legend has a white bullet next to it in the list. From the site:

    White bullets are the ones most commonly associated with "pure" urban legends -- entries that describe plausible events so general that they could have happened to someone, somewhere, at some time, and are therefore essentially unprovable. Some legends that describe events known to have occurred in real life are also put into this category if there is no evidence that the events occurred before the origination of the legends.

    --


    t'nera semordnilap
  151. Must be that NY Times guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't know Jason Blair started working for Wired News. ;-)

  152. Any others? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tried searching for "formfucker" but Google just threw up one lame-ass site whose author was too busy with crappy animations to bother with any actual content, and separating the words just resulted in the inevitable list of millions of pr0n sites with the word "fucker" in.

  153. Who is the joke on? by brownaroo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Well I did buy those pills, and I'm quite happy with the extra 2.5" I got with my money.

  154. Re:SomethingAwful is hosted on a crime-ridden ISP. by DavidTC · · Score: 1
    You aren't declared guilty, your ISP is.

    And your ISP is guilty.

    If you don't want to stop email from spamming ISPs, don't use SPEWs. Duh. Those of us who do will continue to use it.

    Honestly, I have no idea who these people are who are idiotic using SPEWs but don't want to block spam from spam supporting ISPs. That's the point of SPEWs.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  155. The DELETE Key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    7. Just delete spam when you receive it. I use this strategy on my account at home, and now that I'm over the initial outrage, it costs me less than a minute a day.

    Okay, I get about 20 spams a day. If I assume it takes 2 seconds to glance at the sender/subject, determine that it's spam, and press the delete key, that's 40 seconds per day. In a year, it's 14600 seconds. That's over 4 hours.

    I make a little over $20 per hour, salaried. When I do consulting I charge $50 per hour. Since the spammer is not giving me 40 hours a week, he owes me $200 a year. At the minimum, I lose $80 per year of my time, in addition to higher access fees to pay for his bandwidth.

    Don't give me crap about pressing the delete key. I'm not interested in investing $200 a year in advertising, especially for crap and porn.

    GO AWAY AND GIVE ME BACK MY EMAIL ACCOUNT!!!

  156. In Soviet Russia... by DaveTibet · · Score: 3, Informative

    I had once stumbled upon an interview with the guy in charge of Demetrius Software, a russian spamming company. He genuinely believed he was doing the right thing, and, indeed, helping his clients achieve their business goals.

    He illustrated the effectiveness of spamming thusly. My services cost $500 (can't remember the actual figure, but it was something to that effect), he said, for sending messages out to a list of 4 million addresses. However, I had more than once been approached by people starting small businesses and not having even $100 in their budget for advertising, asking to, like, send their spam to 400,000 people for $70. I never refused, he said, and guess what - all of them were repeat customers coming back in a short while and ordering full-scale mailings for the full price.

    This would only mean, he reasoned, that spamming boosted their business well enough.

    1. Re:In Soviet Russia... by SystematicPsycho · · Score: 1

      People who run fraudulent businesses and get caught out have nearly always gone to the grave believing they've been doing the right thing and that their business practice was legitimate. They usually don't mean for people to get hurt but they're so far deluded and blinded by greed they're almost out of control. There is also the pathological liar.
      ---

      --
      Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
  157. I laughed... by sentientbeing · · Score: 1

    ..when I saw that the mentor for the spammer responsible for pinacle snake oil was

    'a former neo-Nazi leader who turned to the spam business..'


    gees that man must have NO social life.
    I mean his conversation must be a killer at parties:

    "so what do you do then Mr Hawke?"

    "Oh I annoy millions of strangers every day by sending semi pornographic emails and sell fake medication. In my spare time I terrorise ethnic minorities"

    --

    ------
    beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
  158. Speaking of embarrassment by kmilani2134 · · Score: 1

    This is slighly OT...but during the shooting of Ocean's Eleven, Matt Damon borrowed some money from George Clooney for gambling and then to pay him back, he wrote him a check with "lap dance" in the area reserved for describing what the check is for. Of course, George couldn't cash that check.

    --
    Those who trade freedom for security will lose both, and deserve neither" -- Ben Franklin
    1. Re:Speaking of embarrassment by Jaeger- · · Score: 1

      Don't know that I believe you on the Damon/Clooney check but anyways, I've done that same thing numerous times with friends. Usually I put "Man Favors" in the memo field. Fun stuff. None of my friend care though so they are always cashed/deposited, still fun to do...

      --
      E V E R Y T H I N G I W R I T E I S F A L S E
  159. Re:SomethingAwful is hosted on a crime-ridden ISP. by Cheffo+Jeffo · · Score: 1

    OK -- your ISP is found guilty ... you just get to share his jail cell (nice nit to pick!).

    Regarding the point of SPEWS, you're right on target and there are lots of people that are too happy to condemn based on the provider, rather than the source.

    That is their (and your) right -- if you don't want mail from someone using a "bad" ISP, then fine ... no argument ... *I* ban e-mail from entire netblocks, as an individual, FOR MYSELF.

    You are missing the fact that tons of users are having incoming e-mail blocked without their knowledge or consent.

    Now, since SPEWS only provides the listing, a big part of the problem is the ISP / mail services that block based on the SPEWS blacklist.

    I wonder how long it will be until some of these ISPs / mail services get sued for blocking e-mail ?

    This is the direction that things are headed -- if the SPEWS solution is so good, how is it that the only people who are going to lose are the innocents being improperly blocked and those trying to stop the spam by blocking ?

    Cheers,

    JAKD

  160. more on "braden" by thinkliberty · · Score: 1

    I wonder if this is the same person? http://209.41.170.70/neighborhood/pdfs/6-5/a2news6 -5.pdf Wednesday, May 21 (2003) Accident: 2:39 a.m. Police responded to a one-vehicle accident on Stinson Road involving Braden Bournival, 19, of Manchester. No injuries were reported http://www.ifn.net/users/dbunting/fraud/credits.tx t Braden Bournival NH Chess Association (non profit) 816 Elm St. , #472 Manchester, New Hampshire 03101 United States Domain Name: PHEROMONE-LABS.COM Created on: 12-Nov-01 Expires on: 12-Nov-02 Last Updated on: 25-Apr-02 Administrative Contact: Bournival, Braden quiksilverenterprises_inc@yahoo.com 816 Elm St. Manchester, New Hampshire 03101 United States (603) 623-3225 Fax -- Technical Contact: Bournival, Braden quiksilverenterprises_inc@yahoo.com 816 Elm St. Manchester, New Hampshire 03101 United States (603) 623-3225 Fax -- Domain servers in listed order: NS1.DTS619.COM NS2.DTS619.COM

  161. who do YOU take investment advice from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Using spam to pump up shares????

    Are you serious? Being stupid enough to "buy" penis-enlargement pills on the basis of an unsolicited email is one thing, but this?
    The entire reasoning behind western society is that one becomes affluent through excercising one's intelligence. People who invest in the stock market tend to be comparatively affluent..If sending out an unsolicited (and untargeted!) mass email can convince enough investors to buy a share as to significantly affect its value, then it is a sorry look out for us all...
    More worrying, when you think about it; for an appreciable change to come about in the value of a stock in the absence of any genuine news from the company, there must be significant interestes involved, and that means pension and/or investment funds. And if it didn't work, the spammers wouldn't be doing it....
    Perhaps it's time to talk to your bank.....

  162. Folks like SPEWS break the system, not spammers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, but, when you decide to participate in the public email system, you agree to conduct yourself according to the established protocol.

    As it stands, the standards that govern the operation of the email system permit both the delivery of unsolicited messages as well as commercial content within messages.

    When you bring a mail server online, you implicitly agree to operate according to the protocol standard -- this means that you must accept for delivery all conforming messages, if you're able. Reject forged headers, sure... authenticate senders, as best you can.

    But, the arbitrary blacklisting of accused spammers, and the innocent users who just happen to share their network, flies in the face of the way the system is intended to work.

    Spammers who obey the protocols, by sending conforming messages, are not abusing or breaking the system as it is articulated and standardized. Blacklisters who prevent network users from making use of the public email system, are, on the other hand, out of line.

    This idea that you have a private system and can therefore make arbitrary rules is indirection. You're not just operating a private system--you're operating a node in a vast network alongside other mail operators, and you've agreed to certain obligations as a result.

    If you don't want to provide a forum for people to communicate by email, don't operate an email server. It's that simple. You agree to the protocol when you decide to operate on the network.

    I'm all for technological solutions to the spam problem, and I'm all for direct action... but, these holier-than-thou assholes at SPEWS and other vigilante organizations are far, far worse than most spammongers--by orders of magnitude.

    People here at /. act as if SPAM is a deadly sin--a crime against humanity punishable by grave consequences (violence! -- and sterilization! -- if some rants here are to be taken literally).

    To those, I say: get a fucking grip... go talk to a Bosnian about genocide and then complain about your email, you fucking dick. Keep things in proportion.

    1. Re:Folks like SPEWS break the system, not spammers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry pal, but your right to deliver packets stop where my equipment starts. My server, my router, my wires, my rules.

      That's how people can run Microsoft software which violate "established protocol" and "internet standards" to hell and back.

      Sounds like you've gone and bought the EFF line. What a shame.

  163. THE SOLUTION FOR SPAM FOUND! by Mr2cents · · Score: 1

    The government will begin distributing free penis enlagement pills, the amount of spam will drop by up to 50%!

    --
    "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
  164. Spamers advertise themselves by malcy · · Score: 1

    Received this few days ago.
    The message was in russian orignally,
    but with help of online translation,
    you all can enjoy it.

    From o.v.smirnova@jps.net Mon Aug 4 04:31:11 2003
    Return-Path:
    From: o.v.smirnova@jps.net
    Reply-To: who@data.net
    Subject: - - - This is interesting- -

    Dear Ladies and gentlemen,

    1) Services
    Dispatch of your message to addresses from our base, USD/mil.messages 15/0.1, 110/1, 700/10.

    2) Is sold a unique program complex under Linux/Unix
    for dispatch email. The address of the sender is latent
    from the addressee.
    Throughput upto 1 million messages/hour
    Cost depending on a configuration starting from 500 USD. Support, updates.

    3) Email address databases
    Description Amnt Price(USD)
    Private persons Russia&CIS 7 mil. 25

    Foreign private persons 126 mil. 150

    Foreign users of marriage
    agencies and acquaintance
    sites 2,27 mil. 75

    'Buisness Russia 2003',
    information on 600 000
    companies 0,61 mil. 25

    All information is sorted by domain name and contains
    only unique addresses within this database.

    Payment through web money.
    Our address: mail - db@ stenos. kiev.ua
    **Please, remove empty spaces from our Email.

    We bring the apologies for inconvenience.

  165. Go after his ISP by edanshekar · · Score: 1

    a simple whois shows him to be with cybergate (gate.net, whom I used to work for), formerly of Fort Laudedale, FL (where I live). Currently they are owned by EarthLink, the evil entity (whom I also used to work for) who merged and then ransacked Mindspring, who I used to love. Oh well, just a thought. It was local info...I had to respond.

  166. Richard Feynman had to share his Nobel by kfg · · Score: 1

    Because, as it turns out, two other physicists solved the same problem independantly at the same time.

    Newton and Liebnitz get cocredit for inventing the calculus at the same time. What's more, everybody uses Liebnitz's because Newton's sucked.

    English physicist Jonathan Swann demonstrated his electric lightbulb the day before Edison did.

    The wheel was independently invented all over the world.

    More than one person can legitimately invent the same thing.

    Go figure.

    KFG

    1. Re:Richard Feynman had to share his Nobel by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      Newton and Liebnitz get cocredit for inventing the calculus at the same time. What's more, everybody uses Liebnitz's because Newton's sucked.

      That is not quite true.

      Liebnitz developed a calculus notation but he certainly was not 'independent' of Newton. The issue is somewhat clouded because of the whitewash report put out by the Royal society on who should get the credit which Newton actually wrote.

      Even so, Liebnitz was working from Newton's scientific papers. Newton did not include the invention of calculus in the paper describing universal gravitation. That would be rather too much at one go. Instead he uses a series of arguments about infintesimals.

      In effect the gravity paper provides a worked example of applying calculus but does not provide the notation or state that it can be generalized. We know however that Liebnitz used Newton's paper as the basis for his formulation of calculus because that is exactly what the papers he wrote says he is doing.

      On the subject of the notation I went to an English public school that taught both of them. The Liebnitz notation certainly has a number of advantages but the Newtonian notation certainly does not 'suck'. It is somewhat limited if you want to do mechanics problems but it does has its uses.

      Incidentally, Feynman's main contribution to the field of particle physics may well have been his notational innovations.

      One of my big frustrations with the web is that the math markup never took off. I think that an open source version of mathematica could provide a tremendous value to high schools. Advanced mathematics is simply too much of a chore without power tools to do the drudge work. Anyone want to learn all about the Groebner basis? Actually it would not be hard to do better than mathematica, the lack of a type system is a real pain. I want to deal in meters and seconds and divide one by the other to get speed. Anyone know if that has been added since Steve W. gave me my last copy?

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    2. Re:Richard Feynman had to share his Nobel by kfg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well in my day we had pencils, paper, slide rules and APL. Shame that IBM effectively killed it by taking it propriatary.

      Ah, the good old days of waking up, eating a cold lump of poison, going to work in mine. . .

      Ummmmmm, nevermind.

      Feynman was always highly visually oriented. It seems almost natural that he would have developed both useful and unique methods of notation. I'm not sure the current state of academia is suitable for the development of his like. In fact I'm not sure the state of academia at the time was suitable for the development of his like and he really got a bit lucky with the Manhatten project. Luck that benefited us all.

      KFG

    3. Re:Richard Feynman had to share his Nobel by osu-neko · · Score: 1
      Newton and Liebnitz get cocredit for inventing the calculus at the same time.

      I was under the impression Leibniz pretty much gets sole credit for inventing calculus, except in most English-speaking countries.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    4. Re:Richard Feynman had to share his Nobel by osu-neko · · Score: 1
      Liebnitz developed a calculus notation but he certainly was not 'independent' of Newton.

      Depends on how its meant. Yes, Leibniz did read and even annotate Newton's papers, and it was working on ways to mathematically solve these sorts of problems that Leibniz invented his calculus. But saying Leibniz's invention of calculus was independent of Newton's is quite possibly (some would even say probably) entirely correct. One does not fail to say email was invented independently of the United States Postal Service, merely because the inventor of email used the mail and was even inspired by it to invent email.

      The issue is somewhat clouded because of the whitewash report put out by the Royal society on who should get the credit which Newton actually wrote.

      Not to mention the anonymous pamphlet accusing Newton of plagerism that was later discovered to have been written by Leibniz.

      Really, the whole issue is so murky, anyone who thinks he knows the truth of the matter is a fool.

      Just to add another data point into the debate, on the philosophical front, Leibniz has also be accused of plagerizing from Spinoza...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  167. You choose to pay, when you choose SMTP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't. You can simply not use email, or, you can use email that is implemented using protocols that forbid unsolicited email.

    You forget that what spammers are doing (when header forgery is *not* involved, that is) is within the protocol. It's poor ettiquette, yes. But it's *permissible* for SMTP-based email.

    I don't know, ditch your SMTP-ish email for X.400 or something... you agreed to foot the fractions of a cent it costs to receive an email, when you decided to receive email on a system that permits unsolicited messages. I have no sympathy for you.

    You have a few choices, of course. You can filter at the mailbox level. A good ISP should be able to set up procmail for you on their end, so you don't even need to download messages that are spam.

    Or, fucking, IMAP. Christ, there are plenty of options outside complaining and logical fallacy.

    1. Re:You choose to pay, when you choose SMTP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      I don't know, ditch your SMTP-ish email for X.400 or something... you agreed to foot the fractions of a cent it costs to receive an email, when you decided to receive email on a system that permits unsolicited messages. I have no sympathy for you.

      If you don't decide to install a bulletproof vest on yourself I will have no sympathy for you when I shoot you.

    2. Re:You choose to pay, when you choose SMTP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather have a spam email kill me than you. Wait, spam doesn't actually kill you. Huh. Guess your analogy doesn't fit in this case.

  168. The last one with a tiddler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I thought I could ignore those annoying spamverts, but...

    There were 6,000 orders for the pills since July

    Shit! At that rate, pretty soon almost *everybody* will have a huge penis! I better get some of those pills quick, or I'll never be able to show mine in public again!

  169. Re:SomethingAwful is hosted on a crime-ridden ISP. by Dimensio · · Score: 1

    I wonder how long it will be until some of these ISPs / mail services get sued for blocking e-mail ?

    Cyberpromo tried this with AOL years ago. It didn't work.

    ISPs are private entities. They are perfectly within their rights to reject e-mail from other third parties for any reason -- even if it's just "I think that the CEO of that ISP has an ugly haircut". There is no "right to send e-mail" anywhere, and unless there is a contractual agreement on the part of the ISP to receive mail, they can drop packets all that they please.

    Your question makes no sense, as there is no impromper blocking. SPEWS is functioning exactly as it should.

  170. Your question was deleted... by Dimensio · · Score: 1

    Sorry, my "your question" statement was in reference to your comment about an ISP being sued for blocking mail.

  171. What kind of idiot would Swallow Spammer's Pills? by TPFH · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "What kind of an idiot would buy penis-enlargement pills?"

    I say, what kind of idiot would swallow a Spammers penis-enlargement pills?

    While I appeciate the humor in this article (especially the Penis Man outfit) I have to wonder, did the author actually buy the pills, and take them?

    I mean we all have guesses at the ethics some of these spammers possess. It wouldn't suprise any of us for a spammer to just take the money and run. Is it that far a stretch to imagine some psychopath spammer sending out poison as penis enlargment pills? (Also, I think some of the traditional aphrodisiacs are in fact mild poisons.) (I'm getting distracted.)

    It's gotten so bad that I sometimes think about sending out spam myself, but as a parody, something to the effect of "Fuck you! Give me Money!" and an explanation that this is what spammers are really saying. I would never actually do this because as Faith said when she took over Buffy's body "It would be Wrong."

    I was thinking of these things while reading the comments and got another idea. What if there was spam sent out warning people that spammers selling penis enlargment pills are actually selling poison. Or better than poison, but a poison that renders you completely impotent for life? (For the irony.)

    And then I thought that it wouldn't even be neccessary to send it via spam. You could just write up an urband legend "Forward this to Everyone you know! Won't Someone please think of the Children!" type of email a la Good Times warning people of the danger of Spammers Penis Enlargment Pills. Just put a fake quote in there about the FDA or other government organization (OHS?) and the clueless idiots would do the rest.

    The Urband Legends websites could write an explanation that it was a hoax meant to point out the fact that you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet and you should never trust a spammer and anyone who buys from a spammer should have the shit beat out of them (or at least people think about it, even normally non-violent people).

    Hopefully it wouldn't quote me because then people would be out to beat the shit out of me. That's the problem with these hoaxes, once they get started they get completely out of control.

    So in conclusion, this post is just something that is nice to think about. You should not actually do it because it would be wrong. Not to mention that I don't want to get the shit beat out of me repeatedly for starting yet another forward this to everyone you know email hoax.

    --
    This signature used to contain a cute kitty virus with ansii art. Please set the slashdot editors on fire. Thank you
  172. 97. I will remember to check links before posting. by TPFH · · Score: 1

    98. I will remember to check links before posting.
    99. I will remember to check links before posting.
    100. I will remember to check links before posting.

    Here is the humorous article I was refering to.

    --
    This signature used to contain a cute kitty virus with ansii art. Please set the slashdot editors on fire. Thank you
  173. An Wang, Inventor of core memory by garyebickford · · Score: 1

    An Wang is worth historical mention. He
    invented the basis of core memory, the predecessor of RAM, in 1949. Core memory was as critical to computers of the late 1950's and 1960's as RAM is now. Prior to Core, memory solutions included drum (like today's magnetic disk), vacuum tubes, the Williams Tube, and Delay Lines - all of which were problematic.

    Here's another link to his biography. (Note that it took several years of lawsuits before he got any money.)

    With the royalties from Core he founded Wang Labs, which until about 1990 was a player in the calculating and computing markets. In 1965 Wang Labs built one of the first electronic desk calculators, and built several successful pre-computer desktops, like word processors and such. But Wang Labs never successfully transitioned into the general purpose PC market (AFAIK.)

    Core was expensive. According to This, 131K cost $823,500 in 1968 - about $.75/bit. Cost of memory dropped below $.01 per bit in the late 1960's or early 1970's. Now, 256MB=$60 =~ $.0000022 per bit. Today, that 256MB would cost $1647905221.37 - a bit steep for a desktop.

    Info on how Core works as well as some interesting historical information is here.

    --
    It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    1. Re:An Wang, Inventor of core memory by kapok_tree · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall that the first computer memory was actually troughs of mercury relying on the slow propogation of electricity through that substance. We've come a long way, and Wang's work was certainly important.

    2. Re:An Wang, Inventor of core memory by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      Yep, that was the delay line memory. It used an acoustic wave in a trough of mercury. There was a feedback loop so that the bits coming out at the end were fed back in at the beginning for another loop. Later ones used magnostrictive effect to initiate virations in wire, which allowed as much as 1000 bits and could be coiled loosely - it was in the wiki link. Interesting approach. Previously I had thought that the Williams tube was the first.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
  174. Re:SomethingAwful is hosted on a crime-ridden ISP. by Cheffo+Jeffo · · Score: 1

    Your AOL example is flawed -- Cyberpromo was a spammer who *was* sending UBE, not an innocent party who was being blocked *through no fault of their own*. World of difference.

    "ISPs are private entities. They are perfectly within their rights to reject e-mail from other third parties for any reason"

    I'm not so sure ... consider the case of a local phone company who blocks *all* incoming calls from another carrier because that carrier has a client who is a telemarketer who violates do-not-call rules.

    Is there really a difference ? Should there be ?

    You say ISPs are private entities when I would think they are more like common carriers and obligated to provide fair access to those who haven't done anything wrong.

    Cheers,

    JAKD

  175. "Idea" factories. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Ideas don;t come from only one place necessarily. That's a complete infofascist myth - it's completely possible for multiple people to independently have essentially the same idea. "

    Really? Name the other people who came up with E=MC^2, and explain why they didn't get a Nobel prize.

    1. Re:"Idea" factories. by ClipDude · · Score: 1

      Really? Name the other people who came up with E=MC^2, and explain why they didn't get a Nobel prize.

      Let's read that comment again: "Ideas don;t come from only one place necessarily. That's a complete infofascist myth - it's completely possible for multiple people to independently have essentially the same idea."

      --

      The DMCA--for corporations, the best copyright law money can buy.
  176. That was you?! by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

    Do you think I can still cash the check?

    --
    http://www.rootstrikers.org/
  177. Re:SomethingAwful is hosted on a crime-ridden ISP. by Dimensio · · Score: 1


    I'm not so sure ... consider the case of a local phone company who blocks *all* incoming calls from another carrier because that carrier has a client who is a telemarketer who violates do-not-call rules.


    Phone companies have a status called "common carrier". This status gives them certain rights over other companies, but also regulates them on a number of levels; for example, they are not allowed to filter traffic based upon content.

    ISPs are not common carriers. Spammers have tried this argument in the past, but it has never been held in a court of law that ISPs qualify as common carriers. There are all kinds of other regulations/fees that would apply if they were -- it's not just a 'de facto' application.

  178. Bullshit by Backov · · Score: 1

    You obviously don't know shit about processing credit cards in the "high risk" sector, which is what penis pills and porn sites are.

    You think Visa takes the hit on a chargeback? Or the bank? No, it's the company the made the charge. They get a pretty hefty fine, and can possibly get terminated by Visa/MC if their chargeback ratios are too high.

    Do you think they are going to PAY the spamming moron that is carding them? No, they're not. Not to mention that most IPSPs (third party CC processors) are pretty good at catching carding these days. And even some of the merchant account gateways are good these days. ESPECIALLY for high risk.

    In short, your post is pretty misleading and just plain wrong.

    --
    In the law there is no overlap between theft and copyright infringement whatsoever.
    1. Re:Bullshit by gfody · · Score: 1

      I don't know shit about processing credit cards in the high risk sector. I do, however know several people who stole many hundreds of thousands of dollars doing this kind of shit. It wasn't always porno and penis pills but its definately not bullshit. One of my close friends went to jail for a year after getting busted at 17 (he was ratted out by a kid only 14 who had stole about a million bucks in less than a year)

      --

      bite my glorious golden ass.
  179. Of course all by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

    Of course most of the 6000 would-be purchasers are probably other spammers, since we all know they are in dire need of penis enhancement.

  180. Shouting "BIG SALE ON VIAGRA" in theaters by billstewart · · Score: 1
    Oliver Wendell Holmes later said he regretted using the "Shouting fire in a theater" line, because of the amount of suppression of speech it was used to justify.

    However, that's not really what's happening here - spammers aren't endangering anybody's life by doing it except perhaps their own. It's a lot more like shouting "BIG SALE ON VIAGRA!!" in a crowded theater, which really annoys all the other people who are there to watch a movie. And it's like shouting it from somewhere in the dark in the back of the theater where nobody's near enough to whack you for it.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  181. Those solutions fail by billstewart · · Score: 1
    • Anonymity is critically important for whistleblowing, serious discussions of sexual abuse, and similar things. Look at the recent British government official who leaked the fact that the government knew the Nigerian Uranium Sale to Iraq report was bogus, got outed, and was found to have "committed suicide" a few days later. It's an important civil right - and in the US there are even Supreme Court cases backing it up.
    • If you make anti-spamming laws too strict, spammers will just set up lots of $50 Caribbean corporations, have the corporation buy a $25/month ISP account, rent a $50/month mailbox, send out 32 million spams, buy some "Internet Consulting Service" or "Mailing and Packaging Service" or "List of 32 Million Email Addresses" from a sleazy-looking guy (or from another $50 corporation) for about the price of 6000 bottles of Herbal Penis Enlarger pills, and by the time anybody tracks them down, they've probably vanished, and if they haven't vanished, you can sue them for the $150 that's left in their bank account that they haven't had time to launder yet.
    • Punishment by large fines? Doesn't help, for the above reason. The big operators will find ways to avoid prosecutability, and you'll only catch a few clumsy suckers, but meanwhile the medium-sized spammers will sell better spamming kits to the anklebiters (using get-rich-quick spam to do their marketing.)
    • Basically, to pry spammers loose from the internet, you need a big iron crowbar and a list of addresses of spammers who still have kneecaps.
    • Alternatively, you've got to find technical or social methods to change the economics - if you can increase the cost of finding a sucker by 3-6 orders of magniture, you can make the spamming uneconomical, and it'll gradually go away. That's the place to focus any SMTP replacements, whether you like hashcash or unique per-message addresses from per-user subdomains or teergrubes and spiderbait or whatever.
    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  182. Adjusting habits around download time by billstewart · · Score: 1
    If you're in the US, and you're not on a wired connection, and you're within local calling distance of a POP (i.e. almost every US internet user), download time doesn't cost you money - you're still paying $20/month, and the email download volume is a lot less than your web surfing volume. So change your downloading habits (which may require getting a better email program.)

    Before I got DSL, I would get up in the morning, dial in to my work email account, start it downloading the couple megabytes of Powerpoint technical training messages or happy corporate fluff from our marketing department, start the coffee pot brewing, and go take a shower. By the time I was out of the shower, the mail would be there, and yes, spam sucks, but it's lower volume than the bloatware that I really _did_ want to receive, and there'd be COFFEE!

    Now that it's a year later, yes, the spam level on my personal email account has grown, but it's still less than my routine work email. (More importantly, I've got an ISP that provides Unix shell accounts and I'm running Procmail to trash 80% of the mail that the ISP's SpamAssassin has flagged as probably spam, and downloading the other 20% to my PC, which drops 98% of the suspected spam into the trash folder where it's nicely sorted and I can validate that it's almost all spam.)

    So download mail while you're eating, or watching TV, or doing something you enjoy, and don't sit there waiting for it. Or read Slashdot while you're waiting for the mail to download.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Adjusting habits around download time by 2short · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "download time doesn't cost you money - you're still paying $20/month"

      It costs the ISP money, and they presumably pass the cost on to me.

      "the email download volume is a lot less than your web surfing volume"

      Not even close. Just because you don't have a spam problem doesn't mean others don't.

      I should not have to change my habits in any way so that someone can send me adds for penis enlargement at my or my ISPs expense.

      "the spam level on my personal email account has grown, but it's still less than my routine work email"

      This is the crux of why you don't see the problem. My work communications are almost entirely by email, yet my spam volume is several hundred times larger than my non-spam volume. Without filtering software email would be an unusable medium for me. My filters take out more than 95%, but that means that of the email I have to actually read the subject of and hit delete, less than 1 in 10 is non-spam. I could not begin to search the mail marked as spam for false positives. The situation is getting worse at an alarming rate.
      Please don't tell me spam isn't really a problem.

    2. Re:Adjusting habits around download time by billstewart · · Score: 1
      Of course I see the spam problem, and have a spam problem. You're focusing on a small side piece of the technical problem (how many bits of spam your ISP transmits compared to bits of useful email), without the context of how many bits of web traffic (I get far more bits of Slashdot alone than I do spam), or the _real_ cost of the spam, which is the attention span used by the [expletive deleted] spammers.

      People will send you penis enlarger ads whether you want it or not. The issue is _where_ your mail gets filtered, and how much control you have over the filtration as opposed to how much control you delegate to your ISP, and how much filtration you have done at your ISP's end of the wire vs. your mail client's end of the wire.

      In your case, it sounds like you strongly need to get some Bayesian filters or other filtration system to help you find real mail. (Do you really mean that only 1 in 200 messages you get is non-spam, with 95% discarded by filters and 4.5% deleted by subject line and only 0.5% of the mail is really for you??) And if that's really true, what fraction of the mail that's really for you is really useful, and can filters help you sort that?

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  183. "Wait 'ntil they get a load of me" by MoFoQ · · Score: 1

    when I sue them for $500 bucks per infraction in accordance to Federal anti-junk fax laws (for the first time, I'm glad I'm on dialup)

  184. It's the SUBSCRIPTIONS, stupid! by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    A wonderful side-effect of subscriptions, you can write your FP in response to a story still to be released for discussion and 'pounce' on it when it goes live.

    Don't let the subject set you off, it's just a phrase.

    --
    "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
  185. Evil telemarketers by billstewart · · Score: 1
    There's a substantial business in telemarketers selling investment scams, which especially tends to be successful with older widows who didn't handle the finances while their husbands were alive. It's really, really sleazy. There's also a lot of telemarketing for home repair scams, where people get taken for shoddy work at high prices.

    The sleaziest, most evil group I've gotten telemarketer calls from was the California Narcotics Officers' Association, a "charity" which provides "training" for drug war thugs. One of the more evil things they've done has been to lobby against medical marijuana, because the suffering of cancer patients is *much less* important to them than the risk to political correctness that would happen if sick people could use dope as medicine - why the next thing you know, penalties for possession of a drug that's much much safer than alcohol or tobacco might be reduced, or the public would have less respect for these officers when they're routinely violating peoples' civil rights with illegal searches or planting dope on people to bust them. Sorry, but I'd rather get a call from a Herbal Fake Viagra peddler.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  186. Those idiots by smagruder · · Score: 1

    Don't these spammers already know my shaft is enormous? And its owner has no issue with its expansion on demand? Perhaps they should start offering manuals on new unique ways on how to use it.

    --
    Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
  187. Forget embaressment factor, collect interest by bluGill · · Score: 2, Funny

    Forget the embarressment factor, just put the money in a bank account, and collect interest until they cash the check. Of course you need to cover overhead (stamp at 35 cents, check and envelope at 25, plus your time) but that is where you should plan on the most money.

    I've even heard of a guy doing that. Advertised Texas Oil well, money back if no oil in 5 years. Took the money, put it in a bank CD, sent it back 5 years latter, but kept the interest himself. Was legal because he had rights to oil on his land, and had a shovel that he was digging a well with. (obviously he would never strike oil) Might be a urban legend, but seems real anyway.

    1. Re:Forget embaressment factor, collect interest by server_wench · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you can make a bundle at 0.4% APR.

  188. Re:"Idea" factories.-II by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Let's read that comment again: "Ideas don;t come from only one place necessarily. That's a complete infofascist myth - it's completely possible for multiple people to independently have essentially the same idea.""

    Unfortunately for you and the poster, he's tying two things together to say something that's false.

    First the original poster isn't arguing from the "some ideas are unique to an individual", but more a "all ideas are general". Then he ties that to the second part "That's why it should be clear to someone willing to apply a moment's logical thought that patents are about control, not innovation." which is only true if one ignores that "not necessarily".

    The intent of patents is innovation. Much as the intent of speeding laws is to reduce accidents, and death. Because some people willfully abuse either one doesn't change the purpose of either one.

    The original poster would have been correct in saying: The purpose of patents is innovation, the abuse of patents is control.

  189. Extradition for Spammers? by cognomen · · Score: 1
    The wired article says that the FTC "doesn't have the resources" to prosecute the fake pills. But a Wired reporter with some time on his hands seems to have gotten pretty good evidence of who the damn spammer is.

    Now, I think that in some countries the legal system works such that private plaintiffs can bring something like criminal charges. If governments won't go after the bastard, then if only some enterprising spam victim could initiate "private plaintiff" criminal prosecution in a foreign land, then extradite...

    Now that would be a Great Thing.

  190. Please Slashdot 1-800-576-4044 Now by the_one_smiley · · Score: 1

    Toll-free number (should cost the spammer by the minute): 1-800-576-4044
    Email addresses: vze3c9sk@verizon.net and frappe_boy@yahoo.com

    I'm surprised there are over 250 comments at +2 and nobody seems to have posted this. The Wired article includes the spammers' toll-free customer service number and email addresses at the very end. I tried the toll-free number and it really works; you'll get the voice mail of Amazing Internet Products.

    - Smiley =)

    --
    "Never put off for tomorrow what can be avoided altogether"
  191. Everyone's assuming this wasn't leaked on purpose? by WoTG · · Score: 1

    I get the distinct feeling that this is a PR stunt. Maybe even a "gain Google PR" (page rank) stunt, what better way to get your penis enlargement site to show up higher on search engines than to get Slashdot, Wired and half a million other sites to link to you?

  192. Mr. Fixo by SEWilco · · Score: 1
    Want to buy a dictionary?

    Want to buy the corrections to the dictionary?

    1. Re:Mr. Fixo by dnoyeb · · Score: 1

      No. Take me off your list.

    2. Re:Mr. Fixo by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      OK, I'll prepare an estimate for taking you off my list.

  193. What kind of idiot... by SpiritedAway · · Score: 1

    From the headlines...

    Shardleton writes "What kind of an idiot would buy penis-enlargement pills?"

    Someone with a small penis maybe?

    Even more idiotic, who would buy them from a spammer?"

    A lot of people do stupid things, but hey its a free country and its their life.

  194. Newton's Real Invention by SEWilco · · Score: 1
    There is a different thing which really made Newton famous.

    You probably heard that he said "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." He was referring to his having used previous discoveries as a foundation for his work.

    At the time, this was somewhat new. Many people had been rediscovering and reinventing things, but often they were either isolated or kept their discoveries secret. There was some published history of previous scientific work, but it was not common.

    The Royal Society began as a small group of scientists who demonstrated and shared discoveries. They adopted publication of discoveries and peer review as an important part of their work. This activity then collected scientific work, made it available, and allowed others to expand upon discoveries instead of spending time repeating the discovery process. This was the real cause of the Scientific Revolution which spread from Europe. Newton joined this process and his discoveries were thus examined, recorded, and made visible to everyone.

    Even though Newton is known for his work in physics and mathematics, it is because he made his work public that we know about his work. And most physics scientists probably learn of Newton's work before they reinvent the calculus and combine it with observations of gravity.

  195. AOOOOOGA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Don't worry about your accidentally clicking on that bad web site.

    Merely pulling up these discussions has already triggered the alarms in the system administrator's office. Clicking on a link within here would only repeat the alarm, but they're already checking what you are doing.

  196. vice versa by lordrich · · Score: 1

    This works the other way round too. I'm willing to get into big trouble for annoying the spammers who annoy me. And I've got a meeting this morning about my recent harrasment of spammers after they started complaining.

  197. Mans just buy it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I asked my friend, who is working in the "adult entertaiment" industry, what's behind this penis enlargement stuff. "Well, that's just pills which don't work. But that's fine with me, since I'm making $60 commission on each sale, and mans buy it happily" But he don't use spam, though.

  198. Cure for Spam---100% Guaranteed by kramer2718 · · Score: 1

    1. Send out a bunch of e-mails for Nigerian bank schemes, penis enlargements, etc.
    2. Kill whoever answers.
    3. Repeat.
    4. Spammers market goes away.
    5. ????
    6. No more spam.

  199. A solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe we should take up spamming ourselves.

    '100% natural organic cyanide - makes you stiff!!!!'

    Then when all the dopes that but this sort of crap from spammers are dead the spammers will no longer have a market.

    Just a thought

  200. Nice but they have rules about company names by wadiwood · · Score: 1

    At least they do in this country.

    Chances are a bank here (Australia) wouldn't print a name like that on the cheque to start with.

    The companies register people and yellow pages refused to list a company that wanted to call itself "Get Stuffed" (An all you can eat restaurant). I guess times may have changed now.

    --

    -- it must be true, it's on the internet.
  201. I reckon this is a scammers honeypot by wadiwood · · Score: 1

    At least to catch people who deserve to be scammed. Funny how spam and scam are intimately linked.

    Try this on for size. Note none of this stuff is the least bit reliable so don't send any money, we'll bill you...

    Joey Skaggs taking prankstering to a higher level: Art!

    and a prank or business idea: hunting for bambi

    Warning: I think the concept is a sick reflection of some sections of our society. It ain't funny, or at least, if this is a scam, the customers deserve to be ripped off.

    --

    -- it must be true, it's on the internet.
  202. Somebody should start serial killing spammers... by xDCDx · · Score: 1

    Those mother fuckers...

  203. GNC by blah1019 · · Score: 0

    Trus that many of their products may be sugar pills in a pretty package but do people really fall for that? I guess so since there is a GNC in about every mall you go into but I don't get how stupid people can be sometimes. I lift, I eat pretty healthy and I don't need no pills to help me out. I have tried protein shakes in the past thinking that adding protein would increase your muscle mass but your body can only process so much of the stuff. In the end, hard work and eating semi healthy will win out over laying on the couch and popping pills. I'm amazed at the "quick fix" mentality today.

  204. Faked return addresses by Anonymous+Codger · · Score: 1

    There's a mention in the article of the practice of using real, innocent third parties' addresses as the return address for spam. Click through the link and you find a company that says it has been victimized in this way and is planning a lawsuit.

    I hope they succeed and wipe these scumbags out. The same thing happened to me earlier this year. I started receiving hundreds of bounced mail messages from various mail servers. My address was the return address, and the content pointed to some particularly disgusting porn.

    I suppose I should have tracked them down and sued them, but I don't have the time or the gumption to go through that process. I did forward some of the emails to the National Fraud Information Center but never heard anything back.

    --
    No sig? Sigh...
  205. Financial argument by Captain_Chaos · · Score: 1

    My main argument why spam is evil is that it costs me money. The spammer is forcing me to spend money downloading his crap, since I have a dial-up Internet connection and metered local calls (and no alternatives), so I pay for every byte I have to download. Morally, I consider it to be on the same level as theft, since the spammers cause me to lose money (not to mention time) without me gaining anything in return.

  206. New spam campaign... by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 1

    4. GNC also sells soy-protein. On the protein utilization scale, soy has the lowest value. ie. just 30-40% of soy can be utilized by body, the rest is excreted. Besides, soy protein intake leads to man-boobs.

    Uh-oh... I can see a new advertising campaign coming...

    ENLARGE YOUR BREASTS! INCREASE YOUR CUP BY 1-3 SIZES WITH OUR NEW HERBAL SOY BREAST ENLARGEMENT PILLS!!!

    --
    I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
  207. Re:SomethingAwful is hosted on a crime-ridden ISP. by Pete · · Score: 1
    Cheffo Jeffo:
    OK -- your ISP is found guilty ... you just get to share his jail cell (nice nit to pick!).

    Actually, no, it's not just a nit - it's the entire point. Except you've got it slightly wrong - it's more like "you get to share his jail cell, except you can leave whenever you want." Strange as that sounds. ;-)

    If you, Cheffo Jeffo, are using the ISP CrapNet (for example), and CrapNet takes on the well-known spammer J.H. Delete - then CrapNet may find themself listed on SPEWS (and perhaps a few other RBLs). Then nobody mailing from a mailserver inside CrapNet (including you) will be able to send mail to an external mailserver that uses SPEWS.

    However - and this is the important bit - if you decided to shift your mail operations to another part of the Internet not under CrapNet's control, you'd have no problems. The CrapNet block would not extend to follow you. Conversely, if CrapNet expanded their operations and acquired more IP space, their new IP space would get listed.

    You see, CrapNet is the target of the blocklist. You're not. But as long as you're choosing to use CrapNet's internet resources (and presumingly paying them for it and thus supporting their spam-supporting actions), you may find your access to the private networks making up the rest of the internet to be somewhat limited.

    But if you choose to leave CrapNet and go somewhere else, you're fine. Bottom line - it's all a matter of choice. You can make whatever choice you like. Stay where you are and support an organisation that is providing resources to spammers - or not.

    Personally, I wouldn't even really care about the blacklisting inconvenience. I'd leave an ISP the second I realised it was supporting spamming clients and refusing to terminate them, regardless of whether it was blocklisted or not. I have no intention of ever supporting spammers, even indirectly. Your choice may well be different.

    You are missing the fact that tons of users are having incoming e-mail blocked without their knowledge or consent.

    If so, then their ISP is not doing things properly. They should make it very clear when signing up customers that they have certain parts of the net blacklisted and no email will be received from those netblocks. I certainly wouldn't give SPEWS even one iota of the blame for this problem - it's all the fault of the ISP.

    Similarly, if configured properly, a failed email attempt should bounce and the person who attempted to send the email should realise that their message didn't get through. They can then try some other way to get their message through. If this doesn't happen, it generally means that the sending mailserver isn't configured properly.

    I wonder how long it will be until some of these ISPs / mail services get sued for blocking e-mail?

    Note: I'm presuming here that you're meaning "ISP is sued by their customer for blocking email that was meant for that customer." It may well happen - I'm sure the potential is there. I would be interested to see how the US court system would handle it - though I'd hope that if the ISP spelled everything out in their sign-up information and the customer/client agreed to those conditions, then the customer/client wouldn't have much of a case. Knowing the wild and wooly world of the US legal system though, just about anything could happen... ;-)

    Pete.
  208. Spam the spammers by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

    6000 orders?

    Someone suggested maybe some of them were bogus orders produced by a "form-filler".

    If so... Only 6000? How about 6 million, or 6 billion bogus orders? Using all the spammers' "personalization" tricks so that each order must be individually examined or even followed up on to determine whether it's real or not.

    Let's get busy, folks!

    (And remember the 11th Commandment: Do Not Get Caught.)

  209. Re:SomethingAwful is hosted on a crime-ridden ISP. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


    If shutting down spamhavens involves hurting a few "innocents" who are giving money to the spam supporters, then I don't care.

    Your post contains the unsupported assumption that those people "giving money to" the guilty party were aware of what the guilty party was doing. Or, at least if you are trying to pretend to be ethical, you are operating under that assumption when you say it's okay to ban everyone giving money to said ISP.

    --

    Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  210. I only have 3 inches but by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

    most girls don't like it that wide

    --
    Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
  211. Re:SomethingAwful is hosted on a crime-ridden ISP. by Dimensio · · Score: 1

    Hey, SA now knows exactly what cogentco is doing.

  212. Re:SomethingAwful is hosted on a crime-ridden ISP. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

    Yes, and had to lose business first in order to even find out about it. Punish you first, tell you what you did wrong later, is NOT an ethical system. (SA's revenue comes from advertising for which they need e-mail to work so they can talk to the advertisers.)

    --

    Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  213. Re:All Negative Sum Jobs should result in unemploy by Yer+Mom · · Score: 1

    How about if we set the hit men on the spammers?

    --
    Never mind Spamassassin. When's Spammerassassin coming out?
  214. Gag gifts? by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the purchases were intended to be gag gifts to friends. "Ha ha Bob, I bought you some penis pills for your honeymoon!" I've bought some ridiculous stuff for that very reason.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  215. Observation by a New Englander by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not surprised that New Hampshire is the home of a penis pill spamming neoNazi. Something about a state with a death threat on its license plate ("Live Free or Die") seems to attract them.

  216. You'll have to change your name by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    May I suggest (from the "Life of Brian") BIGGUS DICKUS?

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  217. You're only halfway done... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'll need to find an orifice to stick it in. Try Ashcroft, he's got a big mouth and he's a giant pussy to boot.

  218. Computers are too simple now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I propose getting rid of all GUI's and going back to command lines. Let the fools try buying their penis pills and refinancing their mortgages with Unix!

  219. Correction by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    2,928,000,000 - 1, I am already hung like a stallion, thank you very much.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  220. So? by Dimensio · · Score: 1

    Perhaps, because cogentco created the situation wherein no one wants their mail by hosting known criminals and spammers, they should have been the ones to inform SA of the potential problems.