Slashdot Mirror


Spammer DDoS-By-Virus On spamhaus.org

McDutchie writes "Steve Linford of Spamhaus announced in a press release that the latest Wintel virus, W32/Mimail-E, was created by spammers for the specific purpose of DDoS'ing Spamhaus, Spamcop, and SPEWS. It's becoming more and more clear that the spambags are the ones behind the recent mess with the Windows viruses. They must really be getting desperate."

45 of 568 comments (clear)

  1. Spam is dying by GotAnMP3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, I've been getting less spam lately thanks to filters. Sure, it's not gone entirely, but it's a lot less of a hassle than it used to be. I sure hope this is a sign of things to come... If they're this desperate to stop anti-spammers, they gotta be in their throws of death.

    1. Re:Spam is dying by kfg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seriously, I've been getting less spam lately thanks to filters.

      Getting less spam lately or seeing less spam?

      The distinction is critical.

      KFG

    2. Re:Spam is dying by Eggplant62 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Seriously, I've been getting less spam lately thanks to filters. Sure, it's not gone entirely, but it's a lot less of a hassle than it used to be. I sure hope this is a sign of things to come... If they're this desperate to stop anti-spammers, they gotta be in their throws of death.


      No, I cannot concur here. In the last two weeks, I've noticed that the reject rate on my filters has gone up by a surprising amount. I use a custom access table, backed up by several RBL lookups done by postfix, with SpamAssassin on the backend to catch anything that does make it through the initial gauntlet.

      Looking back through my logs, I've only got three weeks saved, but here's the breakdown of rejects for each week:

      Week ending Oct 18 - 122
      Week ending Oct 25 - 250
      Week ending Nov 1 - 214
      0400 Yesterday through now - 37

      Note that I'm seeing hits on addresses that have never existed here, i.e. webaster@$mydomain (yes, the spelling mistake in webaster is theirs, not mine), spammers_lie@$mydomain (non-deliverable, harvested from my usenet posts), mers_lie@$mydomain (trying to remove the obfuscation I might have put in), and now I'm seeing the idiots try to get their crap through by using a non-existent address, john@$mydomain, as the "mail from:" value to attempt to get their crap through.

      Yes, they've become so desperate that criminal methods aren't below them. All the filtering that's being done has lowered their response rates to where it's no longer as profitable as it used to be. Of course, the mindset of these idiots is that they'll just crank out the spam all that much harder, in all that much more quantity, in order to get the rates back up to something manageable. Of course, it's beyond them to think that if people are no longer interested in their pitches, they might check employment opportunities at the local McDonald's, as that might be more a more lucrative situation for them.
  2. End of the line: by eliza_effect · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ironically, the spammers who try to "get tough" in this way will probably end up putting themselves out of business. They've only survived this long because of relative obscurity, but once these extra-malicious spammers are caught, there won't be much in the way of goodwill for the other, questionably legal ones. Good riddance.

    1. Re:End of the line: by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This isn't spammers, it's organized crime. And they won't be caught, either, until law enforcement infiltrates someone in, or someone gets caught for something else and agrees to turn the rest of them in for leniency.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  3. DDoS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wonder if this will be quickly followed by a press release on being slashdotted..? The world's friendliest DDoS attack..

    Chris, taffie down under..

  4. I like this one better... by jollis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I like this NANAE post by Steve Linford much better. Especially the last paragraph.

  5. This oughtta help by _LFTL_ · · Score: 5, Funny

    W32/Mimail-E, was created by spammers for the specific purpose of DDoS'ing Spamhaus, Spamcop, and SPEWS.

    And in phase two of the attacks spammers craftily create stories containing links to the target spam lists and post them on slashdot. LFTL

  6. Computer Crime by silentbozo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've said it before, the feds should stop looking for super-uber-mega crackers. The biggest, most expensive, and most damaging ONGOING computer crime is spam. They're not idiots, and they're not harmless nuisances. They're quite capable, and have hired on many technically proficient guns to do their dirty work, cracking systems, running hordes of zombies, and trying to find exploits in every commercial and non-commercial system so they can send out ever more spam.

    Get to work on eliminating spammers and much of our current crop of computer-related woes will just GO AWAY. The only people who would hate for this to happen are the spammers, the hired guns, and companies like Symantec...

  7. Great News! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is great news!

    Now we're once step closer to linking spam to al Qaeda. These viruses are terrorist actions, and are more demonstrably more dangerous even than Iraq's nukes!

    Once we somehow link spammers to September 11, we can invade them (or maybe just throw them in jail where the other inmates can do the "invading").

    1. Re:Great News! by pchown · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Have a look at the Terrorism Act 2000 (the latest UK anti-terrorist legislation). It's getting close... If the DoS attack can be said to be for the purposes of intimidating supporters of anti-spam legislation, they are probably caught.

      By section 56, someone directing an organisation carrying out such a DoS attack is liable to life imprisonment.

  8. A good thing really by Ezza · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anything that brings "spam" and "viruses" closer together in the public eye is bad for spammers in the long run.

    And fortunately for the rest of us (or unfortunately depending on your point of view), this type of behaviour just makes spammers more of a target for legislation and law enforcement.

    --
    I'm a perfectionist but I'm trying to cut back.
  9. Spammers and the future of E-Mail by jlemmerer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    First they spam us and now they do even infect us with viruses... when will it ever stop?
    I don't really get it, while spam is increasingly annoying (altough i use a highly customized spam assassin filter i still get about 10 unwanted mails) writing viruses is plainly illegal. But what's the reason for DDoS'ing these sites? The only way to fight the spam is to use mail filters. if people want one they have to customize it themselves to make it actually work.

    If the spam keeps increasing as fast as it has in the past few years, the future of mail will be dark... here is my vision: (behold!) you will have a "buddy" list of friendy or coworkers similar to instant messaging services such as ICQ and MSN Messenger and only mails from "thrustworthy" origin gets actually forwarded to you mailbox. not so cool, isn't it? but imho its the only way not to have to delete several dozens of spam a day. (and what annoys me most -> i sometimes accidentially delete mails from friends because they are hidden underneath masses of spam.)

    yours
    johannes

    --
    ".Sig Stealer" was here
    1. Re:Spammers and the future of E-Mail by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 4, Interesting

      BLATANT Conspiracy theory, I know, but with the current situation (SCO, MS, etc) who knows.

      - Current Virii spread most effectively via MS email products.

      - Said products COULD have been "fixed" a long time ago.

      - Features that SHOULD have been incorporated into Oulook (prevent external IMG in HTML email, selective Scripting disable, etc) are implemented by other vendors = profit for said vedors.

      - MSN hotmail = spam magnet. Solution = MSN 8 = profit.

      - more Virii & Spam = more attraction towards centralised email & buddy listing; Largest of which = MSN.

      - moving towards a Microsoft "internet"??????

      hmmmmmmmm

      --
      Have a nice day!
  10. Here's the article by l0wland · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Looks like the site is getting /.-ed. So in case it's down, here's the article:

    Spammers Release Virus to Attack Spamhaus.org

    A new virus released by spammers on Saturday 1st November is infecting computers worldwide, and this time the purpose of the virus is to attack www.Spamhaus.org. The W32.Mimail.D virus is the latest in a string of viruses, each one released by spammers for the purpose of creating a vast worldwide zombie network of spam-sending machines and building an attack network consisting of hundreds of thousands of virus-infected zombie machines with which the spammers then attack anti-spam organizations.

    W32.Mimail.D is designed to infect computers worldwide causing them to each begin making overwhelming amounts of bogus requests to Spamhaus.org's web server, www.spamhaus.org, and also attacks the web servers of www.spamcop.net and www.spews.org.

    Spamhaus began coming under massive distributed Denial of Service (dDoS) attacks in July 2003, soon after the release of the SoBig.E virus and the Fizzer virus (W32.HLLW.Fizzer). In June Spamhaus stated that spammers had now moved from simple spamming through open proxies to actually manufacturing and sending out viruses to create a network of spam proxies, infecting hundreds of thousands of mainly home-user machines on broadband (ADSL) lines.

    Fizzer (W32.Fizzer-A) in particular is a very wide-spread worm which spreads by emailing itself to contacts in Microsoft Outlook and Windows address books. The purpose of Fizzer is to install a minature web server and a DoS attack tool, specifically for attacking anti-spam organizations. In August and September 4 anti-spam systems were forced into closure under overwhelming dDoS attacks that hit them for weeks at a time.

    Spamhaus itself was subjected to the same intense dDoS attacks for 3 months but survived thanks to its large distributed network capable of absorbing the attacks. Still, expecting more attacks, and with still no intervention by Law Enforcement, in mid September we moved the Spamhaus web site behind an anti-dDoS device known as iSecure supplied by Melior CyberWarefare Defence (www.ddos.com) and can therefore now withstand the waves of dDoS attacks.

    --

    "Honey, I feel a certain distance between us..." "Really? A 31ms ping ain't that bad..."
  11. Re:They're annoying by phaze3000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Except, of course, that part of SpamAssassin's checks are to use the 'antispam registries' you are complaining about.

    Quite frankly, with the current volumes of spam it is impractical to try and run a mailserver for more than a few thousand users without some form of blocklist or having extremely deep pockets. The problem with SpamAssasin is that it actually increases the load on ones mail servers - a variety of checks have to be run on every single mail. By contrast, using a blocklist means that spam can be rejected before the DATA stage, reducing the load on the server, and the bandwidth consumed by spam.

    --
    Blaming GW Bush for the Iraq war is like blaming Ronald McDonald for the poor quality of food.
  12. Poor grandpa by aardwolf204 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Recently my cable internet service was suspended. Upon calling tech support I was transfered to the fraud and abuse department, you can imagine the look on my face. The techie told me that my access had been suspended because a computer on my network was infected with the welchia worm. The techie was kind enough to even provide me with the MAC address of the offending machine. I was suprised because my mixed network of 10, linux and windows machines, is kept up to date with the latest security patches. After checking all 10 machines I found that none of them had the mac address supplied by the techie. Upon further investigation of my DHCP logs I found that my WiFi network, SSID free_as_in_beer had its first visitor. I left it open because I believe in free access and wanted to see if anyone interesting would enter the network. Unfortunatly the mysterious computer was not logged in so I could not send a net send message to it, and it seems that the person would connect infrequently. I asked my neighbors and couldnt find the individual so I was forced to employ WEP enchrption. Now I've got chalkings outside my apartment just incase someone with any bit of knowledge wants a free ride, but my point, yes I actually had one, thanks for reading was that I feel bad for grandpa and grandma with their 2000 model compaq connected directly to the cable modem for emailing the grandkids. I was fortunate enough to convince the ISP that my network had been secured and I was granted access again, they on the other hand have few options. Then again this is a good thing for repair guys that make house calls, but between gator (or whatever its called now) and all the other crap out there I think they're busy enough.

    I only wish that I could keep my WiFi up without WEP for my neihgbors or anyone walking by without exposing myself to risk of internet connection termination.

    Have any other slashdotters had similar experiences, or suggestions. Thanks.

    --
    Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the /.crowd.May ur days b merry & bright & may al
    1. Re:Poor grandpa by gad_zuki! · · Score: 5, Interesting

      >I only wish that I could keep my WiFi up without WEP for my neihgbors or anyone walking by without exposing myself to risk of internet connection termination.

      Print up some business cards with the WEP key. Hand them out to people you trust.

      Control outbound port 25 connections via your firewall. Allow only port 80 from untrusted clients. etc. Its not *that* hard. There are linux distros set to do this using an old 286 if need be. If you want to give it away you will need a robust firewall. Think of it as a digital condom.

  13. They are winning by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    based on the number of spams that are getting through. It has jumped up again (doubled) in the last 1-2 months.
    The spamers are not desperate. They have simply figured out nice openings and are bulldozing a near infinity lane highway.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  14. Remember when? by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Remember how every spammer that got interviewed would claim that he wasn't doing anything illegal?

    Well, when these viruses get traced back to the spambags, it's going to be sweet to see those bastards doing time.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  15. evil spammers getting it slashdotted... by auzy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, the guy behind this article is obviously a spammer.. its a really smart idea to slashdot a site which is getting DDOS'ed... Well, I'm wondering what would have been more damage.. the worm or the slashdotting

  16. Two part plan by glassesmonkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Maybe it's a 1-2 punch type approach.
    Step A - release virus to DDoS on blacklist maintainers ...(DNS/blacklist/etc has to be re-routed until virus passes)
    Step B - while blacklists are down, send out massive spam campaign or more virus-type spam

  17. Re:They're annoying by Analysis+Paralysis · · Score: 4, Informative
    Spamassassin, yes. Antispam registries (think SPEWS), no.

    Hate to rain on your parade here, but SpamAssassin does use blocklists by default (as described in the FAQ). It is the existence of such blocklists that has forced certain major ISPs to stop writing "pink contracts" to known spammers and they are the only anti-spam measure that reduces the cost that ISPs have to bear in terms of mail-server storage and excess bandwidth that spam causes. Rest assured that the spam epidemic would be far worse without DNSBLs and the cost of Internet access far higher.

    Whitelists may work for some people, but others may need to keep their inboxes open (e.g. vendor support).

  18. Re:Desperate like a fox by jmv · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, it doesn't prove they're desperate, but it shows that spamhaus and others hurts them (otherwise, why attack them).

  19. I'm glad that the spammers did that... by rediguana · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm being serious here...

    Haven't the authorities shown a propensity for going after malicious software writers, particularly viruses and worms, whilst completely ignoring spam? By writing malicious software, haven't they just attracted a whole lot more attention from law enforcement than they would otherwise have got?

    Good on them I say - I think we could do with more law enforcement attention on these sort of people!

    Of course it doesn't deny the impacts on those being attacked, nor covers the international aspects of spam. But with more countries creating explicit laws to deal with hacking and misuse of computers, the more dodgy spammers might start getting what they deserve - a good ass-pounding in prison!

  20. Re:Not really... by nchip · · Score: 4, Informative

    Oh, puhhlleeeze:

    Read the virus analysis before making untrue claims:

    The worm sends a large amount of data to remote servers (port 80 and ICMP). The worm verifies that a connection is active by contacting www.google.com. If successful, an attack is initiated on the following domains:

    * spews.org
    * spamhaus.org
    * spamcop.net
    * www.spews.org
    * www.spamhaus.org
    * www.spamcop.net

    --
    signatures pending - ansa@kos.to - (dont mail there)
  21. My evil plan for spam. by gad_zuki! · · Score: 4, Funny

    First get a corporate shield, an S-corp can be had for as little as $100 in most states. This will protect your personal assets from a lawsuit.

    Get a bulk mailer and email harvester and sell "Placebon the Herbal Viagra." Get a credit card processing account (or maybe just paypal) from a bank.

    Email a million people.

    Get ~5,000 orders.

    Charge $19.99

    Send them a .40 bottle of vitamin C with a little sticker that says "Placebo you bought from a spammer, dumbass. Cure wait ails ya."

    You profit. They get burned. Everyone wins. For the moral people, think of it as your personal war against scurvy.

  22. No good news here by heironymouscoward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Anyone who believes that this is the desperate act of a dying species is woefully wrong. Spammers used to be somewhat naive technologically, but the last year or two has seen a consolidation of spammers with virus writers and in essence the battlelines between the "good" and the "bad" users of the Internet have never been so well drawn as now.

    A symptom of all evolving systems, natural or artificial, is that parasites will take advantage of easy opportunities. In nature, this battle has been a fundamental force for evolution and change. I don't see why it should be different in the Internet, which largely behaves like a natural system.

    Here is an analysis of the subject by an expert on the matter (oh, it's ME?!). Bottom line: as long as the Internet is built on predictable defined structures (protocols and gateways), it will be heavily parasitized. What we see today is only a warmup. The solution is to find ways of evolving the structures of the Internet faster than the parasites can evolve.

    This problem won't go away through wishful thinking - we need to understand what is actually going on. Heck, this discussion is moot: if my theory is correct, self-modifying defensive systems will happen exactly as the parasites have evolved: because this is what happens in natural systems.

    I just trolled myself. Damn.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature
  23. Re:How to make the services more spamproof by pjrc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is critical for anti-spam blocklists to operate in real time. The lists are not "distributed" like software, movies or other media. The blocklist must be queried, and those queries must operate close to real-time. This is essential so that updates to the list can stop a spam run while it is still in progress. Also, operating in real-time is important to support removal from the list (and potential legal problems associated with being unable to remove someone promptly).

  24. Quick to judge by Jesus+IS+the+Devil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People shouldn't just jump to the conclusion that the perpetrator of this is some commercial spammer. I visit some webmaster forums and many have commplained that some of these sites like SPEWS often go overboard in their blackholing, ending up block innocent bystanders who have a tough time getting out of these blocks.

    I say it could have been the work of some pissed-off admins who were frustrated.

    --

    eTrade SUCKS
    1. Re:Quick to judge by melonman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't like spam, but I have to admit that the thought of someone seriously inconveniencing SPEWS doesn't upset me too much.

      Our server ended up on their blacklist despite never having sent a spam, because someone else in the 16-bit IP range had. 16 bits, that's up to 65K machines with maybe half a million users...

      Our machine is in a server park. Of course spammers operate from such places. The SPEWS argument that you block thousands of innocent users to get at one guilty one is just plain immoral, and, at least in my case, has the effect of making me opposed to any centralised anti-spam measures, whereas previously I would have been favourable.

      If it ever happens again, I'll buy myself a clean SMTP server, or find another solution, but the one thing I'm never going to do is contact my ISP (who, incidentally, enforces a strict anti-spam policy), because I object on principle to being dictated to by people who treat my company's reputation as 'collateral damage' as part of their quixotic campaign.

      As for the 'change ISP every three weeks' advice, that just isn't a viable option when you have a few dozen domains, many of them interacting with third party mail filtering, Exchange servers etc.

      If SPEWS dropped that one policy of punishing the innocent in an attempt to get at the guilty, it would have my support. Until then, I expect SPEWS to continue to alienate the people who should be on the anti-spam campaign's side.

      --
      Virtually serving coffee
    2. Re:Quick to judge by Indy1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      more then likely, your hosting service refused to act on spam complaints, and spews kept escalating the listing untill the whole /16 got nuked (would you indulge my curiousity and tell me what /16 your on? I'm willing to bet its a major spam haus). Spews wasnt trying to get that one spammer only, its trying to beat some sense into your hosting service by bitch slapping them. You are collatoral damage.

      Changing isps every 3 weeks isnt viable, but when you pick isps in the first place, do you homework.
      Pick a good one once, and your very unlikely to ever have to worry about Spews. The reason why Spews is a problem for you is because a LOT of mail admins including me use it. Spews itself IS NOT your problem, its your isp thats the problem for refusing to deal with spammers on their network. We collectively have decided that when a major isp refuses to deal with their spam problem, that we'll refuse to deal with them. And your caught in the middle.

      Hypothetically, if Spews ever died, you'd have far worse problems. Why? For example, I HEAVILY firewall off large isps that have major spam problems, you should see my ruleset for blocking. Not counting the geographic bans, its at 944 entries, and each entry drops a /24 at a minimun, with most entries taking out a /16 to /20. And I know i am not the only one doing this.

      Now imagine your isp starts harboring a spam gang (ala Verio or C&W) and blatantly lies and refuses to get rid of the spammers despite all complaints. This quickly gets noticed in NANAE, and mail admins will start dropping that entire hosting service into their deny lists and firewalls. Good luck EVER getting out of 1000's of firewalls and deny lists. At least you can get off Spews if your isp cleans up.

      --
      Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
    3. Re:Quick to judge by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      For example, I HEAVILY firewall off large isps that have major spam problems, you should see my ruleset for blocking. Not counting the geographic bans, its at 944 entries, and each entry drops a /24 at a minimun, with most entries taking out a /16 to /20. And I know i am not the only one doing this.

      Unless you're running the firewall for AOL, Earthlink, MSN, or Yahoo I really doubt Verio or C&W gives a shit if you just fell off the face of the earth completely, much less blocked a couple of their networks. If you did work for such a large company you wouldn't be blacklisting like that for long as you'd lose your job.

  25. But they CAN do these viruses ... by MAFIAA · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What beggars belief more is that a corp with the near-infinite resources of Microsoft still gives people a near-perfect vector for virus distribution. I'm sure if any one of us had 40Bn cash and 8 years (is that how old LookOut Express is now?) we could either code or hire programmers to code an email client that wasnt broken.

    Of course.. if they ever mended LookOut the AV guys would go out of business overnight but that's a whole new consipracy theory involving large cash backhanders and deliberately broken coding there... :o)

    --
    I wonder if those who believe Might Is Right ever wonder if they Might Be Wrong...
  26. Reject before accept (was Re:They're annoying) by Joel+Rowbottom · · Score: 4, Informative

    Seriously, if you want to reject stuff at SMTP time rather than accepting it then processing it, try using sa-exim (a freshmeat search will turn it up) - it fits into exim and rejects as soon as it's worked out it's spam - mid-DATA if need be.

    --
    Smegma.
  27. Re:unfortunately untouchable by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Informative
    whoever wrote this is probably sitting somewhere overseas. so, unfortunately we can bitch all we want about it being illegal, because noone is going to do anything about it.
    The reason no one is going to do anything about this is not the fact that these people are overseas, but the fact that local law enforcement is not doing anything.

    These cyber-crimes should be addressed in the same way as any other (international crime). Your national law enforcement officers should track down the country of residence of the culprit and/or send out an international search warrant. Contrary to popular belief, 'overseas' isn't some backwards region whose citizens have barely discovered the abacus. In many countries, writing or distributing virii is a crime, as is executing DDOS attacks. Which is good, because it means law enforcement in those countries will generally assist in bringing these criminals to justice.

    If you want to complain about nothing happening, complain to your local cybercops.
    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  28. An eye for an eye, a minute for a minute by matfa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    An eye for an eye, a minute for a minute;

    Well, say spammers send their messages to 2 million recipients, and each spend, on average, 10 seconds reading and deleting said spam. That comes out at 231 days of _completely wasted_ life. Life that can never be given back to whoever lost it.

    Even worse, since that's time spent awake, it's more like a year of real time. Say the spammer sends 100 such spams, he would then have _wasted_ an entire lifetime. We can thus, by the "An eye for an eye, a minute for a minute" rule, confiscate the rest of his life!

    There's the argument you requested!

    cheers,
    m

  29. Bayesian filtering by dido · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've been using SpamAssassin's Bayesian filtering features to get rid of my spam for good. I've turned off SpamAssassin's use of any of the antispam sites like spamhaus, spews, and spamcop, mainly because some of them have been foolish enough to sweep such a wide net that turning on use of these sites causes SpamAssassin to filter legitimate mail that comes from my own domain! (that's what I get for living in a country whose ccTLD is run by a brain-damaged registrar...) I've been running almost totally on Bayesian filters after having trained them carefully for a month, and have thus far had zero false positives and false negatives. I mainly keep the spam around to further strengthen the training of my filters and for occasional entertainment value. Those Nigerian scams can be really funny sometimes, you know. :)

    These blacklists could go away tomorrow and my Bayesian filters will only keep getting better and better at weeding out the spam. In my experience, these antispam sites are actually more part of the problem than the solution, because they filter more mail than they should.

    --
    Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
    1. Re:Bayesian filtering by Indy1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and the spammers will continue to waste your network bandwidth and resources. Content based filtering is
      a inperfect solution at best, and one that does NOTHING to discourage the spammers. Only heavy blocking of spam friendly countries and isps seems to do much to discourage more spam.

      --
      Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
  30. Re:They're annoying by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Spamassassin is great for ISPs and other companies that need rule-based spam checkers that are sort of "generic".

    For personal filtering, nothing beats a good bayesian filter. I use POPFile myself and it's approaching 99% accuracy and I _LOVE_ it.

    Spam very, very rarely makes it past, and if it does, it's the generic "check out this site" type message with no other information. Even spammers trying this technique aren't having much success as I'm seeing less and less of it (maybe 1 or 2 message a month make it past the filters).

    The next step in anti-spam evolution will be spam-scanning software that automatically follows links back to webpages and looks for "spammy" content and tags the message as spam in the email system.

    For those out there that havn't tried a bayesian form of filtering yet, give POPFile a try: (http://popfile.sourceforge.net/). Just be sure to read the instructions.

    --
    "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
  31. Re:I don't see what the problem with spam is by McDutchie · · Score: 4, Insightful
    If it is useless, I delete it (it takes all of 2 seconds). Whats the problem?
    Two hundred thirty-five gazillion times two seconds is the problem.
  32. Re:Legislation and TLD's by vidarh · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The flaw with this is exactly that it allows easy filtering. Spammers want to reach you regardless of whether you are filtering or not, so would likely not care about *.spm.

    And for porn sites: If they are all on *.xxx they will be filtered, but much of that filtering would happen by people apart from their clients themselves. Yes, it would remove children (which I'm sure the porn sites would be very happy about - if you're in a business that require credit card signups and where your primary cost is bandwidth, would you like to have an underage person with no credit card but all the time in the world to download your preview content over and over again and wasting your bandwidth accessing your site?), but it would also remove people surfing from work (you'd be surprised - I've run several networks where all traffic went through a Squid proxy, and the traffic stats were "interesting" considering it came from people working in glass cubicles), from any country that decides to stop the "immoral" porn sites, from any municipality or state with powers to order ISP's to filter, and a wide variety of other situations.

    The porn industry would likely hate *.xxx for those reasons: It makes it easy to censor them.

    And we should be vary of any attempt to force controversial content to be labelled for exactly that reason.

    Another problem is who sets the standards. In some countries kissing publicly is considered obscene. Some countries consider bare womens limbs obscene. Some countries are pretty liberal about underage nudity as long as it's not in a sexual setting (some places parents taking pictures of their children playing naked on the beach would be ok on a page with their holiday pics, but would be considered child porn if they were put on a porn site, for instance)

    This is why the .kids proposal was altered to .kids.us - it restricts the above problem to standards within a single country. But in the .kids.us case it's about positive labelling: Label what you explicitly want to allow rather than that which some people will want to restrict, so the problem was smaller to start with.

    A .spm would have some of the same problems. As long as the criteria would be made purely based on delivery method and volume I wouldn't be too concerned, but again the question would be in what cases mass distribution could be made outside of .spm, and how to verify that it taken place.

    Also, a .spm would need more than just that - a major problem of spam is the cost of handling it for ISPs. Making it harder to reach users, but giving spammers a specifically legal way of delivery, would likely exacerbate that by forcing spammers to massively increase their volume to make up for reduced reach.

  33. Re:I highly doubt a consparicy by swb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Unfortunately, I think we have 10-20 more years before we start to see really efficient policing of the Internet. Laws and law enforcement agencies need to be changed and they need time to learn how to efficiently handle electronic crime

    What I think we'll end up with is one of two things:

    (1) The internet largely hobbled by draconian rules, regulations and laws and left unusable except for EDI among large corporations. Think of "national security", "public morality" and "piracy" as the reasons here.

    (2) The "internet" still exists, but most people connect through "super ISPs" that filter, process and protect their users. Unlike AOL, they actually will be responsible for protecting PCs connected to their networks.

  34. SPEWS is *slow* to judge by frankie · · Score: 5, Interesting
    despite never having sent a spam, because someone else in the 16-bit IP range had.
    [...]
    my ISP (who, incidentally, enforces a strict anti-spam policy)

    These two statements are mutually contradictory. But first, a reminder that SPEWS is not Not NOT representative of mainstream anti-spam blocklist providers. Both SpamCop and SpamHaus use narrow targeted blocklists. Furthermore, the real responsibility for your blocked email lies with the recipient postmaster who chose to use the SPEWS list. Their server, their rules. You could call them and ask to be whitelisted.

    According to best evidence, SPEWS always starts with an abuse complaint email and a /32 blocklisting. If further spam arrives at their address(es?) the listing expands to /28, /24, etc, until either the spammers are removed or the entire ISP is listed. In order to reach /16, your ISP must have ignored SPEWS and retained its spammers for a long Long LONG time.

  35. Why it won't happen by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful
    • The government is too busy busting bong makers and other "terrorists" destabilizing the American Way of Life.
    • Big business has done a great job of undermining all aspects of government regulation of business activity -- it took outright criminal theft at Tyco, Worldcom and Enron before the government cared. Microsoft is allowed to run an illegal monopoly with no penality. Fraud, churn and deception at almost every investment bank and mutual fund. The examples go on, but the basic idea is that the government is unwilling to go after massive corporate fraud unless there's a PR risk to the President.
    • More insidious I think is the level of "responsible" corporate complicity in spam. There was a great article in Sunday's Minneapolis Star Tribune about the level of involvement by businesses one would assume have too much at stake to get involved in spam; they don't spam directly, but they're more than willing to deal in email info, which ultimately leads them to deal with spammers. Equifax, Experion and so on are willing participants in linking email with credit information and other personal data. Anyway, these people are "Platinum Club" members of the Republican political machine. Exposing them to news articles about spam and black-hat activities, even with a degree or two of seperation, is a major political problem for the Republicans. Republicans also depend heavily on the "car dealer" economic-level entrepenuer, the local bigshots who bankroll house seats. This socioeconomic group more than likely has a lot of involvement in the direct marketing game, and they can't be pissed off, either.
    • There's also some "legitimate" ideological rationalization. The Republicans are staunch allies of anything associated with corporate free speech. Any limitation on what or how a corporation can send its message runs into a whole gauntlent of Republican ideaologues who insist on the corporation's "right" to free speech in all realms, including the commercial.

    The basic problem is that the DOJ is a political institution. It's not a neutral enforcement institution seeking to punish lawbreakers. Who and how it decides to punish people are political decisions, deeply influenced by the political needs and goals of the administration. Spam and spammers have too many growing ties to people important to the Republican administration and its pro-corporate, pro-business financial backers. A real crackdown on spam would have shockwaves that would hurt them financially and politically, and with the election only a 366 days away, you can bet that pissing these guys off is something they don't want.