New York Spam Ring Lawsuits

Iphtashu Fitz writes "Microsoft and the Attorney General of New York have announced multiple lawsuits against what they term as a spam ring operating throughout New York and responsible for sending billions of illegal junk e-mail. According to articles at ABCNews.com, CNet News.com and elsewhere the state of New York has filed 6 lawsuits against alleged notoriuous spammer Scotty Richter and accomplices. Richter is well known among the anti-spam community, holding the dubious distinction of being ranked number 3 on the Spamhaus Registry of Known Spam Offenders. Microsoft has seperately filed 5 other lawsuits."

Comments

Are they

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they just trying to get their case backlog totally out of the way before the CANSPAM act goes into effect, or what?

You've got....

[Lipongo]

Lawsuits.

Goodbye!

In need of SPAM

[Anonymous Coward]

Please forward all spam to info@optinbig.com

Re:In need of SPAM

[Lizard_King]

Tis nice retribution, but you would also be giving a notorious spammer a valid email address. Your own.

Re:In need of SPAM

[c1ay]

Please forward all spam to info@optinbig.com

Sure thing! I'll add it to the list I already forward my spam to. Perhaps you'd like to add these to your list.

president@whitehouse.gov
vice.president@wh itehouse.gov
first.lady@whitehouse.gov
mailbox@r pc.senate.gov
postmaster@dpc.senate.gov

Re:In need of SPAM

[sakeneko]

Please forward all spam to info@optinbig.com

Oh, I suspect he's running a spam filter on his email address, probably an industrial strength one. <wry grin> I'd add a comment about not sinking to his level, but I'm not sure there's room on his level for more people than him. ;>

Re:In need of SPAM

[Alan]

Ha, Mr. Bush doesn't read the papers, do you think he reads his email? I'm sure he has his trusted advisors go through the email and pick up what is interesting, and give it to him in a nice powerpoint presentation after he gets up from his mid-morning nap.

Re:In need of SPAM

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and become spammers yourselves. Nothing like sinking to their level eh?

Re:In need of SPAM

[bmike78]

You were going to give them your email address?

Just forge the headers and the return email address when you send out the message.

Just remember to put the opt out link at the bottom of your message. :)

Re:In need of SPAM

[shanen]

The White House no longer accepts email. As Dubya said so famously: "Who cares what you think?"

Re:In need of SPAM

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh, Power corrupts - PowerPoint corrupts absolutely...

How about the people who hired the spammers?

[jcr]

Spammers send the spam.. Someone else takes the orders and the money from people who reply to the spam. Is anyone going after them?

-jcr

Re:How about the people who hired the spammers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is anyone going after them?

And if "Yes," what can we do to donate guns or ammunition?

Re:How about the people who hired the spammers?

[Anonymous Coward]

A very good point!

They ought to close down anybody who sells like this.
Another point is that the companies that sell everyone the 4mile long penis extesions probably fall foul of trading standards laws, at least in the uk.

Re:How about the people who hired the spammers?

[belmolis]

According to the article in the New York Times (p. C1, continued on C3) the suits are against three companies. The actual spammer named is a Paul Boes, who was employed as a marketer by the other two companies, Synergy6 and OptInRealBig. OpInRealBig is owned by Scott Richter, the guy named by Spamhaus as the world's number 3 spammer. So, yes, assuming that this is the way it works, they are going after the people who direct the spammers.

Re:How about the people who hired the spammers?

[Liselle]

The problem is that the order-taking/filling is just as distributed as the spammers themselves. There isn't a penis-pill warehouse the FBI can raid and shut down the whole operation. Small operators abound, and when you consider they can sell a $2 bottle of pills for $50, and take into account the zero cost of spamming... any idiot can do it.

It's like trying to smash hundreds of ants with your fingers. You can catch a few, but the rest are scattering all of the place, and none of them individually amount to anything important.

Re:How about the people who hired the spammers?

[Speequinox]

You got it right. The lawsuits go after the whole ring of scumbags, not just the punk who pushes the Send button. In this case, all who profited from it are targeted.

Re:How about the people who hired the spammers?

[Rinikusu]

Because technically it's not "illegal" to ask someone to advertise your wares. If you're a company and you want to reach an internet audience, you go to "Direct Marketing" Company B and say "I want advertising for my product!" Company B says "Sure, that'll be $xxxx". At that point, Company A is not concerned about how Company B runs its business, it's not the one breaking the law. I foresee a time when Company A will get Company B to do the marketing, and Company B will turn around and "outsource" the job to an offshore company (while taking their share of the profit) who can do it cheaply and without fear of legislation shutting them down.

Now, my knowledge of contract law is limited, but it's this same kind of mentality that also allows Nike to contract the manufacture of its shoes to some contractor in Asia, who does not have any sweatshops, but then it subcontracts out to other contractors who may not be as "ethical". Nike has plausible deniability. So does the Spam "customer". We could "boycott" the advertisers, but look at the Nike boycotts. Just how effective are they? Or the Walmart boycotters.. Walmart just posted record numbers.. see what I'm getting at?

It sucks. Maybe resistance is futile after all.

Re:How about the people who hired the spammers?

[nametaken]

So what we need is legislation making the seller responsible for their online marketing, subcontracted or not?

Re:How about the people who hired the spammers?

[CKW]

Seriously now - I've wiped out an entire anthill of ants that was living in the ground by the foundation of the house whose basement apartment I was renting. The key to wiping out hundreds of ants is a) persistence, and b) persistence. How many seconds are there in 10 minutes? 600. Guess how many ants I can kill in 10 minutes? As many as come out the door of the anthill. Neat thing about ants, you kill a few and the pheremone scents released during battle and death attract all the rest to "defend the colony". Sure there are some out foraging and deep in the colony that won't be there, but come back tomorrow and do it again, and do it for 4 days in the row - and poof, you've wiped out an entire anthill without using any chemicals or traps, with your bare little finger. Come back once a week all summer and kill the stragglers who are struggling to feed the un-seen queen, and eventually the queen starves to death - poof, colony gone.

Persistence and the willingness to do the job, that's all it takes.

Hey, if the RIAA thinks that they can sue all 60,000,00 of us file sharers, surely we can hunt down and exterminate a few hundred small time spammers!!

It was just the other week where a spammer was quoted as saying that profits were down and cost of business had quadrupled due to the efforts of spam-filtering and anti-spammers. We just need to finish the job off properly, as opposed to easing up and getting used to the status quo.

Years prior to this no-one outside of the tech community had a high awareness of spam. Now *everyone* agrees it's a vast menace. Now is the time to strike.

Re:How about the people who hired the spammers?

[duggy_92127]

It's like trying to smash hundreds of ants with your fingers. You can catch a few, but the rest are scattering all of the place, and none of them individually amount to anything important.

Maybe. But I say, keep fucking smashing. Again. And again. And again. They may have hundreds, but the only thing stopping us from getting them all is time. Take them down one by one.

Doug

Re:How about the people who hired the spammers?

[caspper69]

Actually, you're right. I own a mortgage company, and we tried a company called DMG (Direct Marketing Group) to generate leads for us. First of all, right off the bat I asked if they "spammed" customers. They took it very poorly and said they used "targeted email campaigns only to customers who had opted in." Well, the day I received an email from them was the day we stopped using the service. I have never opted-in, and as a matter of fact, I go out of my way whenever I submit my email address anywhere to explicitly opt-out. Not only that, but the leads they generated were bunk anyway. It just goes to show that if companies are responsible corporate citizens (like mine!) then these marketing companies will go away, because I certainly know I don't want to be associated with spamming in any way, shape or form.

Re:How about the people who hired the spammers?

[sakeneko]

The problem is that the order-taking/filling is just as distributed as the spammers themselves. There isn't a penis-pill warehouse the FBI can raid and shut down the whole operation. Small operators abound, and when you consider they can sell a $2 bottle of pills for $50, and take into account the zero cost of spamming.

This is even more true when you don't need an actual product to ship -- scams are low-overhead operations. P.T. Barnum would've loved these guys.

Re:How about the people who hired the spammers?

[Anonymous Coward]

You sit and spend 10 minutes killing 600 ants at the rate of one a second?

Moderators need a new choice:

-1, This guy is nuts

Re:How about the people who hired the spammers?

[swb]

I found that kerosene poured into the hills worked just as well, and only required one treatment.

Re:How about the people who hired the spammers?

[The Salamander]

Yea, but who didn't burn ants with a magnifying glass when they were a kid........

Re:How about the people who hired the spammers?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll remember this if I ever decide to hire a hitman and the feds come knocking at my door.

Re:How about the people who hired the spammers?

[Cyno01]

Funny, i was just playing SimAnt. You bastard.

Re:How about the people who hired the spammers?

[jcr]

It just goes to show that if companies are responsible corporate citizens (like mine!)

Umm, NO.

You're not a "responsible corporate citizen", you're a spammer. The burden of due diligence is *yours*, when you hire anyone to feed you leads. Hopefully, you're an ex-spammer, but time will tell.

-jcr

Re:How about the people who hired the spammers?

[Tackhead]

CKW wrote:
> The key to wiping out hundreds of ants is a) persistence, and b) persistence. How many seconds are there in 10 minutes? 600. Guess how many ants I can kill in 10 minutes? [ ... ] come back tomorrow and do it again, and do it for 4 days in A row [ ... ] Come back once a week all summer [ ... ] Persistence and the willingness to do the job, that's all it takes.

PROPOSAL FOR ALTERATION OF SLASHDOT PLAN FOR GLOBAL DOMINANCE:

When Phase Three of the Plan goes into effect - electronic voting being the technology that will enable Slashdotters to 0wn t3h wh1t3 h0uz3 - CKW is to be appointed to the dual position of Attorney General and head of the FTC, with all powers pursuant thereto.

Spammage delenda est.

Re:How about the people who hired the spammers?

[/dev/trash]

Of course you opted in. You signed up as a customer.

Re:How about the people who hired the spammers?

[the_mad_poster]

You must have some outrageous home owner's insurance by now.

Re:How about the people who hired the spammers?

[Anonymous Coward]

How did you find them? They obviously did a bad job for you even if you hadn't minded that they were spammers. My guess is if we could cut off the leads they get, they wouldn't have a business case. Maybe if we understood better why people use spammers we could find out how to prevent them from getting the business in the first place.

Re:How about the people who hired the spammers?

[Spoing]

Safer yet is a mix of water, vinegar, and soap...boil and pour. The more the better, though a 5 gallon pot helps. Kills ground bees/wasps too.

Re:How about the people who hired the spammers?

[Lwyd]

why kill the ants when you can kill the queen? If the queen dies, so will the rest of the ants in a few days time...

Re:How about the people who hired the spammers?

[wheany]

The queen is all yucky and squishy.

Re:How about the people who hired the spammers?

[scsirob]

That's all fine and dandy, and compliments to you for doing the right thing, but how many penis pill / viagra / date-a-virgin /goatse.cx companies do you think will fall in the 'responsible corporate citizens' group??

Re:How about the people who hired the spammers?

[A.Gideon]

Reading the NYTimes article, noteworthy to me was that only the company in the middle (OptInBig) claimed to make money. The company which did the actual emailing and the company with the spamvertised web site were both (at least apparently) dead.

I'm not sure what this means, though.

Re:How about the people who hired the spammers?

[JuggleGeek]

I believe you. After all, mortgage companies wouldn't ever stoop to spamming...

You did no research on the company, you were stupid enough to believe a spammer when they told you "It's a targeted opt in list" of a million people, and (worst of all) you paid money to a spamhouse, which encourages them to continue. Sorry, but it sounds like you're part of the problem.

Re:How about the people who hired the spammers?

[Ciggy]

Hey, if the RIAA thinks that they can sue all 60,000,00 of us file sharers, surely we can hunt down and exterminate a few hundred small time spammers!!

Why don't we just get the RIAA to do it for us?

So...

[edubarr]

do we like micro$oft now?

Re:So...

[Frymaster]

do we like micro$oft now?

of course not :)

suing spammers, though, is probably the best course of action open to ms, though. they have has some notorious security flaws that have allowed spammers to set up open relays on ms boxes. their popular email reader has in the past also had some dramatic bugs that have contributed to virus transmission traffic (in the public eye, all nuisance email can get lumped together whether it's "i love you" or "buy viagra").

for ms to make a serious contribution to fighting spam they would either a) have to plug current and potential holes that help propogate "bad" email (malmail?) b) do something else.

while there is the new "security committment" thang going on in redmond and it is probably a good start, doing something in the "something else" category (ie suing spammers) is a lot faster and easier.

Re:So...

[lurker412]

Probably not, but that's no reason not to be pleased that they are going after a big time spammer. As a large email provider, Microsoft has to spend a lot of money on storage, processing and bandwidth for spam. It also has to deal with all the customer complaints that spam generates. So it is certainly in Microsoft's corporate interest to reduce the flow of spam. That also happens to be in everyone else's interest as well, so Microsoft does deserve some appreciation in this case.

Re:So...

[danknight]

Naw... We Just hate 'em a little less this week

Re:So...

[sniggly]

Well the vulnerabilities have not been exploited to set up OPEN relays, theyve been set up to be closed email spam relays and web servers.

http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,60747,00.ht ml ...his group controls 450,000 "Trojaned" systems, most of them home computers running Windows with high-speed connections. The hacked systems contain special software developed by the Polish group that routes traffic between Internet users and customers' websites through thousands of the hijacked computers. The numerous intermediary systems confound tools such as traceroute, effectively laundering the true location of the website. To utilize the service, customers simply configure their sites to use any of several domain-name system servers controlled by the Polish group, Tubul said.

450,000 of hijacked windows boxes are being used as spam relays and webservers and this only by one group...

MS is like the guy who left his carkeys on the bar while taking a leak and now suing whomever stole their car. While exploiting the weakness may be illegal it's also the stupidity of microsoft (not writing secure software even though win95 already necessitated it) that causes the thieves to have such an easy time.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Give me a break. Its easy to understand why MS is doing this. MS has maybe 99% of the PC market. Linux will maybe be able to cut this one percent next year. Good for Linux. 100% increase.

MS on the other hand is not that concerned (in the short run) - If linux goes up 100% they are only going down 1%. But if the total marked drops MS is hurting. MS has seen that spam is beginning to be a big problem for consumers. If this means that consumers is less likely to buy a new computer, MS is hurting. Linux on the other hand has a lot of growth potential without worrying about the total numbers of computers sold.

Re:So...

[daminotaur]

"they have has some notorious security flaws that have allowed spammers to set up open relays on ms boxes" Most open relays are *nix boxes.

Re:So...

[pyros]

Most open relays are *nix boxes.

The parent was referring to the likes of So.Big which infected Windows boxes to setup SMTP zombies for the Spammers to use. I'm unaware of any *n*x vulnerability which has been exploited to create a network and spamboxes.

Re:So...

[Eristone]

MS is like the guy who left his carkeys on the bar while taking a leak and now suing whomever stole their car. While exploiting the weakness may be illegal it's also the stupidity of microsoft (not writing secure software even though win95 already necessitated it) that causes the thieves to have such an easy time.

Okay - I gotta take a bit of exception to this. Let's roll the clock back to 1994 when Win95 was in final development...

The World Wide Web was in it's infancy and the playground of the digital literati. The Internet existed only to the colleges, the research labs and the government. (And a few lucky individuals in well-wired areas where "PPP" connections to the Internet were starting to become available)

The typical home user (i.e. the typical Windows user) who had an online connection used either AOL, Compuserve, GEnie or Prodigy or the local BBS and it was all via dial-up phone lines and a proprietary client. (Exceptions for BBS, Compuserve and GEnie... they let you use any terminal-type program)

Corporate networks weren't tied into anything but themselves. Heck, most of them were running Netware IPX/SPX or Microsoft NetBIOS (ewwe). Viruses propogated as floppy-to-floppy/boot sector infections. Stealing a connection involved searching for machines left connected to modems with PCAnywhere running.

Microsoft was developing their AOL-kller client MSN. Getting a TCP/IP stack for Windows to work was a kludge and a half. At this point, Windows 95 (end of 1994) is feature-complete and they're just knocking down the bugs. The assumption was more of the same - dialup using proprietary client to MSN network for home users. Corporate network for work users.

These guys weren't looking to the future of computing to assume that everything was going to be networked to everything. Up to then, network costs were prohibitively expensive. (Compuserve and AOL charged hourly connection rates.) Only companies with large IT budgets and extremely skilled staff networked pcs. The average user plugged a printer and a modem into their machine and all the hype was over the 33.6 connection. Rich users also plugged in a scanner.

They had no idea that within a year, everything would be switching to TCP/IP, PPP connections would become affordable to the masses and the cost of networking gear would plunge to "affordable" and every company on the planet would be tying it's LAN into the Internet. Not to mention the various viruses that started to propogate as time went on. The "Ping of Death" didn't exist in 1995. And they've been playing catch-up ever since as folks have become skilled enough to understand the underlying network portion and how poorly Microsoft had built on it.

It's fair to nail 'em for crappy security, but nailing them for not seeing into the future and assuming everything was going to really be plugged into everything within 2 years? That's a bit harsh.

Re:So...

[DNS-and-BIND]

Digital literati? Sorry, I'm not one of those, and nobody else I knew was one, either. Have you been reading too much "Wired" magazine?

And quit being a Microsoft apologist. They don't need you, really.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

In windows 3.11 the dialup tcp/ip stack was provided by trumpet winsock, you could run mosaic and netscape, eudora, mirc and a great many other windows internet clients that way. Microsoft ignored the internet until win95, that's when it pushed trumpet winsock out of the market and started to play dirty catch up with netscape.

Viruses have been around since the first home computers. Security has always been an issue in Unix (having a root account and less privilleged user accounts is the basics of security. The real difference between dos and unix is the lack of user privileges, which made it both easy and insecure.

Really when you say "they had no idea..." well they did and they tried to get people on MSN instead of on the internet and didn't engage the internet until they lost that battle.

So yes the need for secure software predates win95.

hang em high

[Anonymous Coward]

unleash the full misguided fury of the Bush administration unto them!

ok, well, maybe the death penalty is a tad too harsh, but i think a good old fashioned tarring and feathering is called for.

Re:hang em high

[Frymaster]

be careful! apparently rumsfeld met with some notorious spammers back in '83 and knew full well about their stockpiles of "weapons of mailserver destruction" and said and did nothing.

wouldn't want that to come out in a trial, now would we...

Re:hang em high

[pvt_medic]

We'll with bush in office we have a chance of trying them as enemy combatants.

AAaaah!!

[GnrlFajita]

Microsoft is back in court, and this time I'm rooting for them? I tell ya, people, the world is seriously coming to an end.

Between this, the world going dark and those smart helicopters, this has turned out to be a very, very frightening day. I'm definitely switching to the 2-ply tinfoil for my hat.

Re:AAaaah!!

[Anonymous Coward]

So are we supposed to like Microsoft this week or not? It's so hard to keep track on Slashdot.

Re:AAaaah!!

[Anonymous Coward]

So hell has frozen over, pigs are flying, the sky is falling and the fat lady is singing ;)

Re:AAaaah!!

[inode_buddha]

".... switching to the 2-ply tinfoil for my hat." I'm experimenting with concentric stainless salad bowls. Now say that 3 times fast!

Re:AAaaah!!

[Anonymous Coward]

this time I'm rooting for them?

Dude, it happens all the time. Microsoft may be evil, but [geek mode ON] they're lawful evil!

Guantanamo Bay...

[BJZQ8]

To Guantanamo Bay with the lot of them, I say...we have a cargo container with your name on it!

Re:Guantanamo Bay...

[irokitt]

Don't some states still have provisions for death by firing squad?

Re:Guantanamo Bay...

[arivanov]

Tried it.

In the first months of rabid paranoya after 9/11 used to work.

Just a nice little anonymous rat on the doj antiterrorism web site that this individual is commiting fraud in order to subsidize terrorism. And the spammer quickly disappears into the night and fog.

Unfortunately it does not work any more :-(

Let the games begin!

[heironymouscoward]

Politicians and moral crusaders learn nothing from history. Prohibition does not work.

The War on Spam will be what drives spammers for once and for all into the arms of organized international crime.

Not a good idea.

Re:Let the games begin!

[southpolesammy]

What makes you think that spammers aren't already RICO-influenced already?

Re:Let the games begin!

[southpolesammy]

already...already

"This message brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department".

(grummble....proofread...bah....)

Re:Let the games begin!

[caseih]

Spammers are already in the arms of organized crime. Using viruses to take over home computers and turn them into zombies. That and theft of service (for stealing my bandwidth) pushes them into the realm of crime. Crime is prohibited. We seek to punish crimes as often was we discover them. Is this different? I don't believe that using laws to control spammers is the equivalent of alchohol prohivition. It certainly isn't the same as using the DMCA to give companies artificial rights and punish users. On the other hand, in a global society, our laws don't do much to stop others. I think we do need a technical solution, however.

Michael

Re:Let the games begin!

[Violet Null]

Politicians and moral crusaders learn nothing from history. Prohibition does not work.

Prohibition doesn't work when it conflicts with what the majority want. The majority wanted alcohol during the 1920's, and were willing to violate the law to get it.

That's got no bearing on spam, which the majority doesn't want, just like the majority doesn't want murder, rape, carjacking, fraud, embezzlement, or any other number of illegal activities.

Re:Let the games begin!

[Anonymous Coward]

Good then we can use RICO to seize all their assets and put them in jail for 100 years.

Re:Let the games begin!

[Frymaster]

I don't believe that using laws to control spammers is the equivalent of alchohol prohivition

well, good. but the current state of spam laws is heading that way! we are attemtping to outlaw the act itself (spam, booze) not the crimes that result from the act (bandwidth theft, drunk driving).

Re:Let the games begin!

[gorbachev]

This has nothing to do with prohibition, but the dubious background of the players in the game. A very large number of career spammers are career conmen with convictions for some type of fraud. Eddie Marin is a convicted coccaine dealer. Alan Ralsky has a number of shady business dealings in his past. Thomas Cowles defrauded his spamming partners and got jailtime.

In addition, large parts of the spamming business is ALREADY in the hands of organized crime, especially in countries like Russia where the mafia has moved onto every profitable business to get their cut.

Proletariat of the world, unite to kill spammers. The more painful and slower, the better.

Re:Let the games begin!

[Midnight Thunder]

Prohibition does not work.

It does work if the vast majority of the population believes in it and doesn't have a need to go against it. This is the reason why the prohibition of alcohol did not work, since basically it was a vocal minority imposing their law on a majority that didn't agree. Also in general cases alcohol does not get on anyone's nerves. The same can't be said of spam. We can tolerate small amounts, but beyond a certain point its enough to create a mob to want to do something about it. You can choose not to drink alcohol, you can chooses not to smoke, you can choose not to go where people smoke, but you can hardly choose not to receive spam, when there is nothing you can do about it.

Re:Let the games begin!

[That's Unpossible!]

Your analogy is horrible... prohibition didn't work because people want alcohol. The war on drugs doesn't work because people want drugs.

Nobody wants spam!

That is not to say the politicians are going about this the right way, but get a better analogy next time.

Re:Let the games begin!

[Halo1]

outlaw the act itself (spam, booze) not the crimes that result from the act (bandwidth theft, drunk driving

The difference is that spamming per definition consists of -among other things- bandwidth theft, while alcohol by no means always results in drunk driving.

Re:Let the games begin!

[jpkunst]

the act itself (spam, booze) not the crimes that result from the act (bandwidth theft, drunk driving).

Sorry, this comparison doesn't make sense. Spam == bandwidth theft. Spam itself is the crime.

JP

Re:Let the games begin!

[Peyna]

Somebody wants SPAM or those who send it and use it wouldn't make any money. (But that's probably something like 0.01% of people)

Re:Let the games begin!

[wkcole]

They are already there, whether you mean acting like a business while engaged in complex criminal endeavors like organizing platoons of zombied machines to send spam and DDoS-attack places like Spamhaus OR if you mean working with the less online-focused organized criminal operations. Gambling, porn, drugs, and money-lending are the biggest backends for spam: do you really think the traditional Mafia-like organizations are NOT involved???

Until recently, private small-time enforcement of private property rights against these slimeballs has been a very rough battle because the government and the really big private property owners like MS have chosen to ignore the issue. We have had solid legal grounds for the principle that spam is 'trespass to chattel' since Cyberpromo lost their cases in the mid-90's, but the scum who think that everyone else's mailservers and mailboxes are some sort of public property despite those cases have enough friends in 'respectable' organizations like the DMA and Congress that they've kept the big boys in business and government from acting. Until now.

The analogy to Prohibition is cliched, simplistic, and just plain wrong. It might be at least a little less so if the overwhelming majority of people occasionally enjoyed a little spamming in moderation, but that's simply not the case. Prohibition of theft and murder does a fairly decent job of keeping those behaviors minimized, and a real Prohibition on spamming could to, if any such law were ever passed or even if law enforcement had the guts to enforce existing laws against unauthorized computer use.

Re:Let the games begin!

[JimBobJoe]

Prohibition doesn't work when it conflicts with what the majority want. The majority wanted alcohol during the 1920's, and were willing to violate the law to get it.


Prohibition included a major conflict of the people. After all, the people had been convinced of the merits of prohibition, and either through their state legislature's, or through direct voting, the majority of voters did indeed approve the 18th amendment. It is unlikely that they were all teetotalers however (I would say that Prohibition was likely upended by a minority.)

Re:Let the games begin!

[wkcole]

For the record on AlRal, he has just been in 'shady business dealings' but is a felon: convicted of insurance fraud, served time, had his license to sell insurance pulled.

Re:Let the games begin!

[wowbagger]

Prohibition doesn't work when it conflicts with what the majority want. The majority wanted alcohol during the 1920's, and were willing to violate the law to get it.

That's got no bearing on spam, which the majority doesn't want, just like the majority doesn't want murder, rape, carjacking, fraud, embezzlement, or any other number of illegal activities.

Almost correct, but while I think you understand the fundimental truth here, you are misapplying it.

The fundimental truth is "Where there is demand, there will be supply." All laws can do is change the supply vs. price curve - society sets the demand vs. price curve.

The problem is that it is NOT we-who-receive-the-spam who demand spam - it is the scummy bastards who wish to hawk their wares (or warez) or simply to rip us off who demand spam.

In that regard, banning spam will only raise the price vs. supply curve - the demand vs. price curve will be unchanged.

However, the difference between spam and booze is that the demand vs. price curve for booze remains fairly constant until the price gets very large, while the demand vs. price curve for spam rolls off VERY rapidly as soon as the cost of spamming rises (at least, I *HOPE* that to be the case!)

And upon this rests the success of any anti-spam legislation: does it raise the price vs supply curve enough to shift the intersection with the demand vs price curve to a point of enough lower volume to make a difference?

This is also why "Just Hit Delete" is such TERRIBLE advice - JHD does NOT alter the demand vs. price curve. Giving holy hell to any remotely respectable businessman who uses spam can shift that curve. That is why I keep nailing Sears any time I get a spam from one of their affiliates advertising siding.

Re:Let the games begin!

[JimBobJoe]

I believe that you're on a good track. Not necessarily that the War on Spam will drive spammers into international crime, but the War on Drugs likely does serve as a good economic model for spam.

Right now states are taking out the dozen or so really big spammers. With time, it's possible that spamming will be changing scales, from a bunch of big spammers with a few little ones, to all little ones, which will prove much harder to find and prosecute.

The economic equivalent to this is catching large drug shipments as they are imported, and that causing a reduction in supply, increasing the price of drugs, and therefore the potential profits, for new entrants. There is after all .1% or something, of people who buy products from spam, as long as that does not go down (and it's at the very least stable) there will always be a place for new entrants. The internet has minimal barriers of entry and is very decentralized, and profits are likely worth it for the one individual spamming a few hours per day (unlike drug smuggling, which reaps rewards from centralizing services, and has the profits to justify the bureaucracy.) With that in mind, I can't see spamming going into the international crime rackets, except possibly as a way of protecting the spammers from legal action.

Actually, as I write this, I think a great economic based argument can be made that taking out the big spammers will increase spam. After all, any one big spammer selling penis enlargment pills was not in competition with himself. If we now have ten smaller spammers taking his place, and they are vying for that .1% who may possibly glance at the email, they will be differentiating themselves through more emails that are more creative. And that's when economic realities whack you in the head....

Re:Let the games begin!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that they want the spam, it's just that those people are stupid.

Re:Let the games begin!

[poot_rootbeer]

Your analogy is horrible... prohibition didn't work because people want alcohol. The war on drugs doesn't work because people want drugs.

Nobody wants spam!

It's not about who wants to GET spam, though. It's about who wants to be allowed to SEND spam.

And obviously, SOME people don't mind getting spam... the response rate needed to sustain a spam operation may be miniscule, but it's still greater than zero. If zero people respond, if companies that resort to spamming see that it's costing them more money than it's bringing in, they'll stop.

Re:Let the games begin!

[cpeterso]

Why did Congress need to pass a Constitutional ammendment to make alcohol illegal, but not need to do the same to make marijuana illegal??

Re:Let the games begin!

[hndrcks]

The majority of non-medical 'controlled substance' laws, including alcohol, are drafted by each state. That is why a Constitutional amendment was required - simply passing a law banning sale of alcohol would have interfered with inerstate commerce, states rights, etc., and would have been unconstitutional.

Currently, the federal government uses its not-inconsequential financial clout to keep those states in line that would de-criminalize any 'bad' drug. Look to California, Oregon, or DC to see what happens when medical marijuana or decriminalization initiatives are raised for public consideration...

Re:Let the games begin!

[sfe_software]

Politicians and moral crusaders learn nothing from history. Prohibition does not work.

I'm not so sure I agree. Prohibition certainly does not work when the majority of the population disagrees with it (or even a significant minority). But when it's something like spam? I'm sure the vast majority of the population is against spam.

I'm sure even most organized criminals hate spam (I just had a wonderful vision about the organized criminals taking on the spam problem... what, are you saying I have a small ****? You wanna send my mother pornographic emails? *bang* ...)

Anyway, there are many activities that are prohibited. Sometimes it works, for the most part; other times -- usually when the activity isn't all that harmful, but is enjoyable by some -- it doesn't. The "war on drugs" is rediculous (remember, it takes two sides to make a war) and will never be won unless one side gives in (and we know which side that will have to be).

But many prohibited activities are easily enforced. Everything from insider trading to child pornography. Sure, these things still happen, but because most people are against them anyway, aside from it being banned by law, it's rather infrequent, and most people -- who for whatever reason may want to engage in the prohibited activity -- still won't out of fear of being caught.

Perhaps one day spamming will be seen by most of society as being a very, very bad activity, and banned by law in many countries, to the point that it's just not worth even entertaining the idea.

Or perhaps I'm just being optimistic...

Re:Let the games begin!

[Steve B]

However, the difference between spam and booze is that the demand vs. price curve for booze remains fairly constant until the price gets very large, while the demand vs. price curve for spam rolls off VERY rapidly as soon as the cost of spamming rises (at least, I *HOPE* that to be the case!)

The demand for spam rolls off to near-zero (not quite zero, because some people just like to be assholes for the sake of it) when law enforcement and/or tech improvements push the cost of spamming above the cost of legitimate advertising methods.

Re:Let the games begin!

[shanen]

Naw, all they need to do is switch to pre-paid email. If they couldn't divide their costs by the imaginary zero, the whole spam business would collapse in a day. And it IS an IMAGINARY zero. Email is NOT really free, but uses resources and incurs costs. Pretending it is free is the root of the problem.

Re:Let the games begin!

[wmspringer]

>you can choose not to go where people smoke

I can't; people smoke where I go to school :-p

But that's a rant for another day..

Re:Let the games begin!

[Tom]

Prohibition does not work.

Prohibition was trying to outlaw something that (almost) everybody wanted. I don't exactly see spam in that category.

Outlawing spam will work. It won't eliminate spam completely, just like making robbery and murder illegal didn't eliminate those - but as with other crimes it would drive it down to a tolerable level.

The Federal "You Can Spam" Law

[Tackhead]

Perhaps the Federal "You can Spam" act is a blessing in disguise.

Because after years of inaction against blatant fraud and trillions of spams, we're finally seeing Attorneys General from several States actually nailing some of these pigfuckers to the wall before the Statewide antispam laws all get overturned by the DMA's spam legalization initiative two weeks from now.

(My apologies to any of you who actually do fuck pigs for insulting you with a comparison to to Snotty Richter.)

Re:The Federal "You Can Spam" Law

[Davak]

With all the pigphucking it's hard to tell if you are trolling or not. You did stir a thought in my head...

Microsoft and New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer scheduled a news conference Thursday morning to announce the lawsuits.

Is it common for companies to join with states to sue somebody? We often chuckle that microsoft wants to rule the world... but this is a little too much cooperation with the law if you ask me. I use XP but this is what I imagine happened:

Bill: "Hey, this @sshole is sending out a lot of spam and people are bitching it's Microsoft's fault"
AG: "We agree. They are bitching because we can't stop it either. Hell, we don't even know how to trace spam to obtain evidence."
Bill: "I'll give you the geekpower if you arrest the bastards. We'll all sue and regain our losses."
*They try to high-5 each other and miss*

Very strange bedfellows...

Davak

Re:The Federal "You Can Spam" Law

[Anonymous Coward]

Apology accepted.

Sincerely,
Peter Jackson

Re:The Federal "You Can Spam" Law

[buss_error]

Perhaps the Federal "You can Spam" act is a blessing in disguise.

The You-Can-Spam act basically sets two types of spam: The pill-pusher organ-enhancing porno spam, which is bad, to Bidnez spam, which they call good.

With the You-CAN-SPAM act, every business gets one bite at the apple. Opt-out lists or "do-not-spam" lists will be just another tool for spammers to harvest working addresses. No, the best solution here is "A few good hangings", as the chairman of the FTC said.

HAHAHAHA OMG TEH $ IS FUNAY!

[Anonymous Coward]

+5 FUNNY, LOLOLOLOL

Finally,

[nametaken]

a good lawsuit.

Re:Finally,

[Anonymous Coward]

In response to your sig, they brush them with their hairy feet.

Re:Finally,

[nametaken]

That's nasty. They're like fungi-infested wire brushes.

It usually does work somewhat

[Anonymous Coward]

"Politicians and moral crusaders learn nothing from history. Prohibition does not work"

It usually does, actually. Sometimes it worked less than others. All laws against something are prohibition. The prohibition against rape and murder are considered to be successful, making the situation better (instead of making it worse).

Re:It usually does work somewhat

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes but when rape and murder are outlawed, only outlaws will rape and murder...

I just want to know what netblocks the spamers own

[AltGrendel]

...that way I can just block them at the firewall.

Re:I just want to know what netblocks the spamers

[Anonymous Coward]

...that way I can just block them at the firewall.

Oh MY GOD! You just solved the problem of SPAM!!!! Next stop Disneyland!

Nothing but a PR move

[scumbucket]

This is nothing but a PR move for Microsoft. It makes them look they are the good guys fighting against spam. Give me a break. Are they donating the $ for NY lawyers to prosecute these guys?

Re:Nothing but a PR move

[SpaceCadetTrav]

Do you really think that a New York lawyer would need donations?

would it not be easier

[linuxislandsucks]

to fix the errors in MS Exchange that allow it to happen in the first place? Talk about security needed fixes, this ranks up as number one in most MS Exchange administrators hearts..

Re:would it not be easier

[Peyna]

A lot of open relays are running *nix. How will fixing problems in MS Exchange solve this?

Re:would it not be easier

[dmaxwell]

Open relays are becoming less important to spammers all of the time. Now I love a good MS bash same as any good Slashdotter but we really can't blame this on them. More and more spam is coming from trojaned machines both 'nix and Windows. You would do better to save your barbs for non-diligent sysadmins.

Re:would it not be easier

[AKnightCowboy]

Now I love a good MS bash same as any good Slashdotter but we really can't blame this on them. More and more spam is coming from trojaned machines both 'nix and Windows. You would do better to save your barbs for non-diligent sysadmins.

That's a bit like blaming the rape victim for being assaulted. Let us remember that first and foremost, the spammer is at fault here. For what it's worth, you SHOULD be able to put a totally insecure machine on the Internet and not worry about someone abusing it just like a woman SHOULD be able to walk down the street without worrying about being assaulted. The problem is that there are too many immoral assholes fscking it up for the good people in this world so we need to make sure our doors are locked at night, our women carry concealed weapons, and our computers are set to auto-update.

Re:would it not be easier

[Anonymous Coward]

most spam servers are trojaned windows machines nowadays - spammers have total control over the mail transport agent on those.

Re:would it not be easier

[AndroidCat]

and our computers are set to auto-update

I'm currently wire-wrapping a computer, and plan to do most of the software more-or-less from the ground up. I'll be sure to add this auto-update feature--sounds useful! :^P

Re:would it not be easier

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a bit like blaming the rape victim for being assaulted.

For walking at night through the park in just a mini, winking and smiling at trepassers and yelling YES! YES! YES! FUCK ME HARDER! while being raped?

That's just what the relay host people do by using broken systems.

Well...

[jdifool]

Hi,

not saying at all that this is not a good initiative in absolute terms.

But I guess that, if ever it improves to reduce the overall amount of mail, Microsoft will use it as another hoax for testifying the usefulness of their brand-new security-policy.

Regards,
jdif

Hooray!

[Erik Fish]

I just hope that they're really going for scorched earth here. It's too bad that the "YOU CAN SPAM" act doesn't have any provisions for Mitnick-style sentencing ("no computer use for X years") because I'm not entirely sure that monetary damages are going to cut it when you're dealing with assmasters like Richter.

Re:Hooray!

[grasshoppa]

I just hope that they're really going for scorched earth here. It's too bad that the "YOU CAN SPAM" act doesn't have any provisions for Mitnick-style sentencing ("no computer use for X years") because I'm not entirely sure that monetary damages are going to cut it when you're dealing with assmasters like Richter.

There are reasons we are allowed the right to bare arms.

Our founder fathers, they were very far-sighted.

Re:Hooray!

[Misch]

There are reasons we are allowed the right to bare arms.

Because we need to get a good tan?

Re:Hooray!

[SilkBD]

Please, I'm begging, please please please... all countries out there... PLEASE... block all us originating emails. BLOCK ALL OF THEM, this way our pigfucking, braindead government can see just how fucked up they are with this stupid god damned law.

Spammer's choice of OS

[mi]

Must be either Linux or FreeBSD... I wonder, if that's why Microsoft is so upset? Or am I just trolling?

Re:Spammer's choice of OS

[Anonymous Coward]

its because of MSN.

Re:Spammer's choice of OS

[molarmass192]

You're trolling. Most of popular mass mailers used by spammers are Windows only. In this particular instance it's not MS's fault though since it would be just as easy to write similar programs for Linux or FreeBSD. The real problems are open relays and ISPs who lease lines to these a-holes.

Re:Spammer's choice of OS

[AchmedHabib]

I guess they could save a lot of storage space, bandwidth, and machines power at Hotmail, if they could limit the spam.

..It would be the best optimization next to switching to FreeBSD.. [rimshot]

Re:Spammer's choice of OS

[mi]

Most of popular mass mailers used by spammers are Windows only.

My impression was, those are just for the "Spamming for Dummies" readers -- people, who have been spammed themsleves and are trying (and failing) to "make a fortune on the Internet", as the scumbag, who spammed them promised.

The pros, and, I guess, this case is about a pro, use stuff like the recently described here program, that masquarades as an Apache process, and calls the owners back for the new spams and address lists.

But then, of course, I am trolling...

Boo-ya!

[t0ny]

Its nice to see that the information from Spanhaus is now being used to prosecute the spammers.

Heck, the first time I saw their site I was amazed at how long and how much work they must have put into it. Now its can all be readily be used as evidence against the spamhauses!

Technical Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a plug for a potential technical solution.

Not ultimate, but a first step:

http://spf.pobox.com

Start adding those TXT records

Re:I just want to know what netblocks the spamers

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I heard, Disneyland burned down.

Spam Ring

[Suit_N_Tie]

One Spam ring to rule them all...

Re:Spam Ring

[Peyna]

So since The Return of the King has been released these jokes are now funny again?

Only when the reward is worth it

[judd]

That's only true of products/services where customers are willing to pay a large enough premium to mitigate the risk of criminal penalty for the supplier. Eg, alcohol, drugs, prostitution have a market who will pay a lot - enough that the supplier feels it's worth the risk.

Once the cost/risk of criminal penalty accrues to spam suppliers, will there be many customers who will pay the consequent much higher rates for spam? I doubt it. Spam has been highly profitable up until now because the costs to those who provide it are very low. That won't be true any more.

Re:Only when the reward is worth it

[Frennzy]

This brings to mind another thought, which I'm sure someone has already said. A lot of thought and effort goes into getting the spammers, but little goes into hammering the companies that use them. It may be hard to trace a spammer, but it's durned easy to track down a commercial website owner. The wording of the new law makes it look to me like the feds can go after the companies who are advertising product, not just the spammer.

While there are obviously ways to avoid prosecution as a commercial provider (move business offshore to non-recriprocal countries), it would at least reduce some of the mortgage/pills/jobsearch spams. I just got a spam from BankOne. They claim it's because I 'opted-in', but I have had absolutely no dealings with them or any of their affiliates in over a year, and I *always* look for the opt-in/opt-out crap when registering an email online. Furthermore, this spam was the first to my private email, which I *never* use for registering with anyone. It's solely for personal communications with family and friends. Strangely, it had a weird variation of my name in the header, which has me wondering how they got it. (it's a variation I use on occasion to help track spam, but which I have never associated with that particular email address).

Re:Only when the reward is worth it

[Anonymous Coward]

You know those 50 deep forwards you get about the happy heart warming story about the one legged dog who saved a kid from crossing a 12 lane highway. Thats where they got it from. The biggest spammers I know are people I know personaly. They think something is cool or cute and they forward the FUCK out of it!

Re:Only when the reward is worth it

[Frennzy]

Great. Now some wise guy from king's college in Wilkes Barre is spoofing headers. I knew I shouldn't have said anything. /. What a wonderful crowd. I do have full headers, and will be sending them to abuse@kings.edu

well then...

[Anonymous Coward]

they can be prosecuted even harder in criminal court and sent for longer sentences in a Federal "pound-me-in-the-ass" Prison, and hopefully put in the same jail-cell as a breast-enlarged inmate (Bob, Bob had bitch tits) who ate too many penis enlargement pills and who suffers from a permanent case of priapism due to an OD of Viagra.

The Truth

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not spam I Tell you, no.

They will never catch the senders of this mail, just as they will never catch Sadam.

What happend?

[Effofx]

I thought New York had a good supply of diamonds.
But I guess times are tough and if it's rings of spam, then so be it.

But, lawsuits over a geometric chunk of unidentifiable meat around your finger? God help us all.

And don't think your significant other will settle for a ring of spam....you'll just have to go to Boston for that "Christmas Sparkler."

Diamonds might be a girls best friend, but guys love the "easy-no hassle-spam financing plan."

Re:What happend?

[Anonymous Coward]

...lawsuits over a geometric chunk of unidentifiable meat around your finger...

You know it's bad when you have to explain the joke while you're telling it.

Excerpts from OptinBig.com

[GillBates0]

Check out the website of one of the companies mentioned in the CNETNews article. It REEKS of hypocrisy.

Some interesting quotes from their website:

"TRUST: In most industries, especially in the Opt-in E-mail business, trust is the most vital, but surprisingly overlooked aspect of business. OptInBig and its employees not only understand this concept, but embrace and practice it on a daily basis."

"FYI: There are approximately 100 million unique e-mail addresses in North America-OptinBig has access to nearly half."

"OptInBig: Possesses over 45 million online consumers in its database;
Has lists available with a reach from 500,000 to up to 16 million online consumers;
Produces over 20 million page views per month on our clients' websites; and,
Delivers an average of 350,000 individual website orders per month.

For a free consultation and to learn which list is best for your current or future business needs, please call (303) 464-8164 to set up an appointment.

And most interesting: From their Acceptable Use Policy:
. SYSTEM AND NETWORK SECURITY AND INTEGRITY
Falsification of Origin. Forging of any TCP-IP packet header, e-mail header or any part of a message header. This prohibition does not include the use of aliases or anonymous remailers.

4. E-MAIL You may not distribute, publish, or send any of the following types of e-mail:
Unsolicited promotions, advertising or solicitations (commonly referred to as "spam"), including, without limitation, commercial advertising and informational announcements, except to those who have explicitly requested such e-mails.

Commercial promotions, advertising, solicitations, or informational announcements that contain false or misleading information in any form.

Harassing e-mail, whether through language, frequency, or size of messages.

E-mails containing forged or falsified information in the header (including sender name and routing information), or any other forged or falsified information.

In addition, you may not use Optin's mail server or another Web site's mail server to relay mail without the express permission of the account holder or the Web site. Posting the same or similar message to one or more newsgroups (excessive cross-posting or multiple-posting) also is explicitly prohibited.

INDIRECT OR ATTEMPTED VIOLATIONS OF THE AUP, AND ACTUAL OR ATTEMPTED VIOLATIONS BY A THIRD PARTY ON YOUR BEHALF, WILL BE CONSIDERED VIOLATIONS OF THE AUP BY YOU.

Re:Excerpts from OptinBig.com

[Anonymous Coward]

"FYI: There are approximately 100 million unique e-mail addresses in North America-OptinBig has access to nearly half."

Heck, there are way more than 100 million unique e-mail addresses at optinbig.com alone. Here are some, go ahead and try 'em out:
aaaaaa@optinbig.com
aaaaab@optinbig.com
aaaaac@optinbig.com
aaaaad@optinbig.com
aaaaae@optinbig.com
aaaaaf@optinbig.com
aaaaag@optinbig.com
aaaaah@optinbig.com
aaaaai@optinbig.com
aaaaaj@optinbig.com
aaaaak@optinbig.com
aaaaal@optinbig.com
aaaaam@optinbig.com
...
zzzzzz@optinbig.com

Re:Excerpts from OptinBig.com

[Eggplant62]

"OptInBig: Possesses over 45 million online consumers in its database;
Has lists available with a reach from 500,000 to up to 16 million online consumers;
Produces over 20 million page views per month on our clients' websites; and,
Delivers an average of 350,000 individual website orders per month."

Heh... all this says is that Snotty Scotty is willing to burn someone a copy of his "45 Million FRESH ADDRESSES CD!!" for the right fee.

If I had my way, the bugger would have "spam" tattooed on that baldy-bald head of his.

Its microsofts business model

[bxbaser]

Sue em to get the future competition out of the way.
Then when canspam is active microsoft can be the top spammer

Re:Its microsofts business model

[Anonymous Coward]

OR conversely, you're a small-minded fucktard who can't see that Microsoft is pursuing this because spam is a problem for Microsoft's business.

I tend to think it's the latter.

microsoft on the good team?

[super_ogg]

Man, I am finally happy with Microsoft. Whether anything becomes of this or not, it's good that they are using their weight to do good.

Way to fn go.
ogg

Re:microsoft on the good team?

[molarmass192]

Well, they're certainly not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. We'll just get the positive side effect of them protecting their own self-interests. Spam accounts for about 80% of all email traffic and Microsoft has both Hotmail and MSN hosting email. It's in their own best interests to nail these jack asses since handling and storing spam emails costs them real $$$.

Re:microsoft on the good team?

[Anonymous Coward]

True, there is always something behind Microsoft's motives but I'll take the positive side anyway.
ogg

Spam ISN'T international organized crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

Prohibition does not work.

Prohibition doesn't work when the prohibited activity is popular among a large segment of the population. Spam does NOT fit this description. Drugs are popular among a fairly large segment of the population - maybe 20% or so (why drugs are popular, I don't know). Spam is only popular among the people who make money from it; about 0.0001% of the population. The rest of the population hates spam. Prohibition should work against spam, if there's a way to find out who the spammers are, and if the government is willing to enforce the law.

The War on Spam will be what drives spammers for once and for all into the arms of organized international crime.

Many kinds of spam already are organized international crime already. "Viagra", herbal remedies, etc. spam alreay use illegal deceptive marketing. Taking over machines to use as spambots also is an organized crime by spammers.

But by "organized international crime", I assume you're referring to organized international crime such as the Italian Mafia, Russian Mafia, etc. Will we see these groups take over spamming? Maybe. But I don't see how it would make much of a difference. They might be slightly better organized than existing spammers, but not much. I don't see how they'll be able to integrate into existing businesses like they do with garbage collection, construction, etc. They might be better at buying themselves political protection; that would be worrisome.

Re:I just want to know what netblocks the spamers

[crawling_chaos]

With trojaned machines doing most of the spamming, about the only effective block is to pull the wire connecting you to the net.

I don't get it

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

These guys are breaking the law and their whereabouts are known.

Why don't we either throw them in jail or form a nice lynch mob and feed them to the aligators?

After all, who's gonna care?

Re:I don't get it

[mabu]

Contact your local Attorney General. Ask him why he hasn't prosecuted any spammers? There are spammers operating in virtually every jurisdiction and they are trackable. The problem is the local law enforcement authorities are not prosecuting these people. The FBI has plenty of cases against these spammers but they're at the mercy of the AGs who don't take the cases.

Re:I don't get it

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

Why don't we either throw them in jail or form a nice lynch mob and feed them to the aligators?

Why? What did the aligators do? I think that's animal abuse.

Easy Solution

[thepuma]

All I need to do is send Frodo to drop the Spam Ring into the pit of Mount Doom, thereby releasing us from this evil.

Then I can go back to the Shire and light off my fireworks...

- Gandalf the Grey

Re:Easy Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Myyyyy peeeenisssssssssssssss!!!!

-Gollum

Re: notoriuous?

[Black Parrot]

> What is this 'notoriuous'?

Since there are several of them, it should have been 'notoriuoii'.

Fitting Punishment ?

[StefanJ]

* Daily mega-doses of penis enlargement pills, until their equipment is so capacious that they can't wear pants and lose conciousness from blood running out of their brains every time they get a woody.

* One-Way Ticket to Nigeria, to meet Rev. Motobu, grand-daughter of the former president, after convincing Motobu that the spammer is the son of a millionaire who loves him deeply.

* Starring role in a series of adult films set at a petting zoo. A porcupine and alligator petting zoo.

Stefan

Re:Spoilers ahead

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL. This would be classic, if there wasnt a fucking book out.

Then again, you probably couldnt sit through a newspaper, much less 3 JRR Tolkien books.

Spam fighting community

[ozzee]

If we all to 30 minutes per day to fight spam, I think we would be far better off.

I don't know if there are communities of SPAMN fighters but it is obvious that if a small percentage of the population did this, the spam cost effectiveness would disappear.

Some companies out there are frightful with their attitude. For instance, yesterday I got a mortgage offer which forwarded me to a web site which I entered mostly truthful information except the name was different. The offer came with an "exclusive" security system. Double whammy ...

I was called back within minutes by a company in Austin TX and when I asked them about their SPAM policy I got a really rude response. I suspect if they get a few more of these phone calls they'll stop doing this. I also found that a large US bank has web pages that refer to this company. Calling the bank and getting a cogent response about spam was engligtening. No one there can help. I suspect a few phone calls from customers could also help this situation.

Unfortunately, the spammers are pretty astute at making life hell on-line so I think this is only going to work through large numbers of small community groups.

So a question for the slashdot community. Are there any of you interested in organizing ?

Re:Spam fighting community

[Anonymous Coward]

Try running Unsolicited Commando from http://www.astrobastards.net/uc/

It makes mortgage spammers life hell!

Re:Spam fighting community

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe people would run it if they could read the page. Dark red on black is nearly unreadable.

Re:Spam fighting community

[Anonymous Coward]

only 30 minutes? Geez, I would be losing ground if that's all the time I used. It would take me longer than that to merely report my spam via spamcop.

Re:Spam fighting community

[ozzee]

Try running Unsolicited Commando from http://www.astrobastards.net/uc/

I gave some thought to these kinds of systems and I decided that they are far more dangerous than good. Soon you will find the spammers using them to damage the competition.

The best way is to get in touch with merchants. I'm even willing to risk a few dollars to place orders for Viagra to try to find who these people are and talk to someone. At this time, the credit card companies are unwittingly aiding and abetting. Guess what happens when you have people like me ordering products on-line and then calling customer the credit card customer support to cancel the payment and then asking them for the contact details of the merchants. It won't be long before the CC companies close these merchant accounts. There is still a danger using these techniques that they could be abused by spammers but I think that with people in the loop, the course corrections could happen more quickly.

The vigilante approach will also make it so that law enforcement gets their butt into gear. Do you know how frieghtening a community group like this would be to the politicians ? Guess how quickly the marketing associations will pull their head in. Unfortunatly, it does take some effort on our part, but we can choose how.

Re:Spam fighting community

[poot_rootbeer]

If we all to 30 minutes per day to fight spam, I think we would be far better off.

Maybe the mail admins here would be, but as an individual end user, it's far easier and more efficient for me to try and ignore spam than to aggressively fight it back to its sources.

Filter what I can, manually get rid of whatever I can't... it requires maybe 1 minute of active work on my part per day. I certainly am not at a loss for other things to do with the other 29 minutes.

Re:Spam fighting community

[Weirsbaski]

If we all to 30 minutes per day to fight spam, I think we would be far better off.

I think you mean if we all took 30 minutes per day to fight spammers.

There's a baseball bat at home. I'll whack some spammer for 30 minutes per day, if it'll help.

Re:Spam fighting community

[Tom]

Soon you will find the spammers using them to damage the competition.

Spammers fighting amongst themselves? How could that be a bad thing?

Re:Spam fighting community

[ozzee]

Spammers fighting amongst themselves? How could that be a bad thing?

Just say these spaminals (spamming criminal) decided to destroy my legitimate mortgage buisness by sending out millions of spam messages to all known honey pots ?

Damned Microsoft!!

[erroneus]

No wait... Yay Microsoft!!!!

I'm very confused...

F vs. J

[Mongoose Disciple]

I can't help but think about that bit in the "Freddy vs. Jason" theatrical trailer about how evil will battle evil. Mmm... spammers with machetes...

Boycott!

[trentblase]

That's it, I'm only buying my size enhancement products from alleyways and vans in parking lots.

Re:Guantanamo Bay... - firing squad

[chimpo13]

Utah does (along with Idaho and Oklahoma). In Utah and Idaho (not sure about Oklahoma), it's an old Mormon thing about the need for blood atonement. Although, it's one of those things that most Mormons don't know/care about.

Like how it wasn't until the 1970s that black people could become God on their own planet when they die. Yes, when die a Mormon and you lived a good life, you become God of your own world. Although, I think that still applies only to men.

If someone reading this is Mormon and you get mad, don't get your special marriage panties in an uproar -- all religions are nutty. LDS is just more recent so it's pretty easier to pick apart.

For my next shot, I'll pick on Catholics for believing they actually eat the body of Christ and drink the blood of Christ. It's not just wine & bread once it's been consecrated. Most Catholics don't think about that, but ask a priest about it.

Why criminalizing Spam is wrong

[heironymouscoward]

I'll back up my (admittedly somewhat bizarre) assertion that fighting spam with legal means is going to be counter-productive.

First, I agree of course that no-one wants spam in the same way as people want drugs.

But. The war on drugs fails not only because people want drugs. Few people want international trafficking in women, nor trade in arms, nor trade in near-extinct animals... Yet none of these prohibited businesses do badly at all. In fact, they do very well.

The principle questions I've asked myself are (a) is it possible to stop spam through law enforcement, and (b) if not, what will the consequence be?

The answer to (a) is clearly "no" for several reasons. Spammers have developed techniques that allow them to work almost untraceably. Forget open relays, that is very 20th Century. Today's spammers use pirated PCs, of which there are probably millions in undetected active use.

The answer to (b) is somewhat more worrying. When spammers operate semi-legitimately, however evil and bestial they may be, they will take some concern to avoid breaking other laws. You will not find snuff videos advertised in spam, nor illegal drugs, nor prostitutes,... Penis extenders and Viagra are annoying, but legal AFAIK.

When spammers are already breaking laws that can land them in jail, why will they stop with a few more felonies. Has the pirated PC be detected and shut down? OK, destroy all data on it, to avoid detection. Sorry, Joe Shmoe. Is there someone blocking your spams through black lists and other means? Perhaps a few bombs in the mail, or even a knock on the door some foggy morning.

The solution to spam lies not in new laws and new criminal offenses. It lies in the protocols and gateways that allow malware to propagate. It lies in that abominable monoculture that leaves tens of millions of people vulnerable. It lies in the definition of new email protocols that are cynical enough for the 21st century.

I believe time will show the legal approach to be woefully misplaced. Jail all the American spammers and watch the problem just keep on getting worse.

Gentlemen, I respectfully rest my case and will now return to my work.

Re:Why criminalizing Spam is wrong

[Steve B]

The war on drugs fails not only because people want drugs. Few people want international trafficking in women, nor trade in arms, nor trade in near-extinct animals... Yet none of these prohibited businesses do badly at all. In fact, they do very well.

The alternative to patronizing the international trafficking in women is to develop some personality and looks that will persuade women to boff you voluntarily. (If it's being dominant that you get off on, then you need to find women who willingly cater to that sort of thing.)

The alternative to patronizing the trade in arms is to abandon your political goals or to figure out a way to obtain them non-violently.

The alternative to patronizing the trade in near-extinct animals is to quit believing that having such artifacts makes a neat status symbol.

The alternative to spamming is to advertise via paper mail, billboards, broadcasts, etc.

Now, you will note that one of these things is not like the others. The first three require a major change in personal outlook and behavior, which is difficult or impossible for most people. The last one merely requires you to scrape up a bit more money. Thus, the last one is price and risk sensitive in a way that the first three are not -- when the risk of punishment pushes the price of spamming above the price of other forms of advertising, spammers will go out of business.

Re:Why criminalizing Spam is wrong

[Spoing]

The alternative to patronizing the international trafficking in women is to develop some personality and looks that will persuade women to boff you voluntarily.

Like the movie stars that get caught paying for prostitutes?

Re:Why criminalizing Spam is wrong

[Tom]

When spammers operate semi-legitimately, however evil and bestial they may be, they will take some concern to avoid breaking other laws.

So that's why we see no scams or 419-frauds in spam mails, right?

Has the pirated PC be detected and shut down? OK, destroy all data on it, to avoid detection.

What exactly makes you think they aren't doing that already? They've already violated whatever the local computer misuse laws are (hacking into and using someone elses PC for yourself is illegal, you know?).

Perhaps a few bombs in the mail, or even a knock on the door some foggy morning.

Doesn't pay. Spam works because it's cost-efficient (for the spammer). Mailbombs aren't.

It lies in the protocols and gateways that allow malware to propagate.

Spam is not malware. Spam is bad content. As long as computers are not AI enough to understand that I'm not really interested in helping ex-dictators of Viagra or buying some Nigeria or whatever way round it was, technology will not be the answer.

Jail all the American spammers and watch the problem just keep on getting worse.

Doubt that. The USofA is not only the #1 offender when it comes to spam, it also is way ahead of the competition.

True, I do get the occasional german or dutch spam, plus some in what I can only assume is chinese or japanese, but the total of that is at most 10%.

Kill or jail all US spammers today, and the worldwide spam volume will drop so far, you'll think it's 1995 again.

Microsoft working as a government agency?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is Microsoft doing this. This is the responsibility of the government. Do we really want corporations going around charging people of committing illegal acts? Isn't that the job of law enforcement/government agencies? This is like the RIAA suing all the filesharers. A lot of people hate the RIAA suing filesharers.... How can you have a double-standard when it comes to spammers?

I don't like the way the corporations seem to be gaining a lot of power over the citizens of our country. I'd rather have government centered power rather than corporate centered power (though less for both would be the best!)

I got a better solution for spam... Instead of going after the people exploiting the system, how about just fixing the system? We can't base our society on litigation forever ya know...

Spam Ring

[nucal]

SPAM Broccoli Ring - It's absolutely delicious!

More than a PR move

[MadAnthony02]

Microsoft isn't suing them as Microsoft, provider of operating systems and applications. They are suing because of the effect of spam on MSN (which is specifically mentioned in the cnet article) and Hotmail. Both recieve huge amounts of spam to user accounts, and cost MS a ton of money to fight, and tick off their users.

Is MS doing this because they are warm fuzzy people who want to save the world from spam? No. They are doing it because spam costs them a ton of money as a company, cutting into their profits, and they want to stop that. Sometimes, what is good for a company is also good for the people who purchase it's products (and in this case even for people who don't)

Re:More than a PR move

[Peter Simpson]

>They are suing because of ... Hotmail. Both recieve huge amounts of spam to user accounts...

Not since a week ago. Incoming spam, which used to average 10's of messages a *day*, is now down to a trickle. Hotmail has started using new filters, along with their new look.

I might even use it now.

Re:More than a PR move

[Condor7]

>They are suing because of ... Hotmail. Both recieve huge amounts of spam to user accounts...

Not since a week ago. Incoming spam, which used to average 10's of messages a *day*, is now down to a trickle. Hotmail has started using new filters, along with their new look.

The filters just mean that the end user isn't seeing all that spam. It is still being sent to hotmail users, and Microsoft still has to deal with it, and has to pay the cost of processing it - including the cost of implementing those new filters.

Re:More than a PR move

[Ciggy]

They are suing because of the effect of spam on MSN

Brilliant - write the OS that can he hijacked and then sue those who hijack it...isn't that entrapment?

Re:I just want to know what netblocks the spamers

[Anonymous Coward]

"With trojaned machines doing most of the spamming, about the only effective block is to pull the wire connecting you to the net."

Or the wire connecting Alan Ralsky to the net.

Fudgepac Shakeur

[Anonymous Coward]

Eliot Spitzer for President

[sfjoe]

Seriously. Between spammers and stock market flim-flammers, Spitzer is the only politician I see that is punishing real criminals.

Re:Eliot Spitzer for President

[sonpal]

He would make a good US Attorney General, and I think he's on the short list of several Democratic candidates running for President.

Re:Eliot Spitzer for President

[JuggleGeek]

Spammers *are* real criminals. They steal time and money from millions of people every day. They hack machines. They forge addresses. Pretending that they are nice decent people is stupid.

Going a bit too far...

[phorm]

* One-Way Ticket to Nigeria, to meet Rev. Motobu, grand-daughter of the former president, after convincing Motobu that the spammer is the son of a millionaire who loves him deeply.
Wouldn't this be overly cruel to Motobu. I wonder though, what kind of person really marries a spammer (don't some have husbands/wives, children) - and if they know his/her primary business activity?
* Starring role in a series of adult films set at a petting zoo. A porcupine and alligator petting zoo.

Please be kind, we don't support abuse of animals here on slashdot!

Re:Guantanamo Bay... - firing squad

[corbettw]

For my next shot, I'll pick on Catholics for believing they actually eat the body of Christ and drink the blood of Christ. It's not just wine & bread once it's been consecrated. Most Catholics don't think about that, but ask a priest about it.

Hey, Christ said to eat his body and drink his blood, not eat something like his body and drink something like his blood. Besides, a little cannibalism among friends never hurt anyone.

re OT Sig

[UrgleHoth]

Hobbits have remarkably white teeth considering the lack of modern dental equipment in the shire.

You mean, you've never heard of a Took brush?

News Flash: Most Wanted Deck of Cards

[mykepredko]

Following the lead of the US Army in Iraq, Slashdot has announced that a deck of cards with the pictures of various spammers and other malcontents villified by Slashdotters has been produced.

Being #3, Scotty Richter's face has been put on the Queen of Spades.

It has been suggested that Darl McBride's likeness be used for the deck's joker.

myke

They aren't charging anyone will anything...

[MadAnthony02]

Do we really want corporations going around charging people of committing illegal acts?

They aren't charging anyone with anything. They are suing them. They don't have to prove that they did anything illegal, just that they did something that caused damages to them.

As far as the RIAA lawsuits vs. these, there is a huge difference. People dislike the RIAA suits because they are claiming huge amounts of damages that are inacurate, and because they are done under a law that eliminates many of the legal protections of most lawsuits. Most people see spam as having huge costs to individuals and businesses, so there is a difference.

As far as not basing a society on litigation, litigation, not laws, was the common way of resolving many issues until recently. I prefer litigation to laws, because when companies do things wrong, they can answer to the government, but it's harder to get the government to answer to anything.

Re:You've got....Fudgepac Shakeur

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody please mod this troll down.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please mod this moron down.

Bill Already giving up.

[sls1j]

Bill Gates, Microsoft's chairman, has publicly stated that he plans to make the fight against spam one of the software maker's top priorities.

Transalation: Quality and security, are too difficult to achieve. Well do anit-spam instead.

Re:Bill Already giving up.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill should be getting kickbakcs from all the spammers for making it easier for them to do buisness. If it weren't for the holes in Outlook (I'm sorry but you have to be an idiot do design software that will run arbitrary code from an email and think that it some kind of scripting "feature") we woudn't have all these worms creating spam zombies.

This is good

[ceswiedler]

Remember, the point of anti-spam measures is not to stop all spam completely. The point is to make spam as expensive as other means of marketing such as direct-mail, telemarketing, and fax blasting. Lawsuits can go a long way towards this.

Re:This is good

[Jadrano]

The point is to make spam as expensive as other means of marketing such as direct-mail, telemarketing, and fax blasting. Lawsuits can go a long way towards this.

I would even go further. Even if lawsuits aren't successful in preventing nearly free sending of bulk mails because there are still offshore servers in some countries, where there is no significant risk of being caught, fined or jailed, lawsuits are still helpful. In that case, they improve the efficiency of source-based filters, which work quite well already and are adopted by an increasing number of mainstream e-mail providers. There is a tendency that those mail sources from which legitimate mail is expected are more risky for spammers (provided there are good laws).

And more games...

[heironymouscoward]

Can't resist one more comment.

According to some points of view, the drug business and the anti-drug forces are locked into a symbiosis. The huge amounts of money being produced by drugs, and being spent on combating drugs, mean that neither side actually has any interest in legalizing the trade.

Think about this for a second: none of the powerful men actively fighting the drugs trade want to see this trade abolished, for if it were to vanish, so would their position and power.

Now, why is the drugs trade so rich? Precisely because it is criminalized. Why is there no War on Coffee, or War on Beer?

You are now asking, where is that vast demand that will raise the cost of spam...? Well, clearly it's there, or we would not have so much spam. The demand may not be domestic, but there are no borders on the internet. (Pace, Beijing!)

My argument against prohibition is that it tends to create a police structure that becomes self-perpetuating and that frustrates the search for other solutions.

I'm looking for other examples of prohibition gone wrong, but the drugs "war" is the only one that springs to mind. Perhaps child pornography is another example where prohibition is arguably the wrong approach.

Re:And more games...

[AnonymousNoMore]

Perhaps child pornography is another example where prohibition is arguably the wrong approach.

Jackson, is that you?

Re:And more games...

[heironymouscoward]

Heh. No. I'm a black man. Thank Jesus.

But I remember a very good discussion on Slashdot about 6 months back in which I argued that law enforcement WRT child pornography was creating more problems than it solved.

Re:And more games...

[AnonymousNoMore]

Jackson is just an easy target for a gag right now because he's on the news.

I didn't read your previous discussion, but my belief is that we should basicly enforce a rule of law that says "hurt a child, go to your grave". I really don't see any parallel between that and drug issues or spam. With drugs, among the victims are the person who is so addicted that he puts himself and his family or others in harms way. That person can and should be treated. In the case of child pornograpy, you end up with a child that will likely never be whole and will grow up to be an adult that is never "recovered" from the experience. A child pornographer has effectively taken a young life and that act deserves an incredibly harsh punishment in my belief system. I truely believe that we should kill people who sexually abuse children. As I didn't read your previous article, I have to give you the benefit of the doubt. But I think to equate laws against child pornography with those of drugs and spam sort of trivializes the former. And no, I didn't have an uncle Ernie so no disclaimer is forthcoming.

I do agree with you that the spam laws being enacted are going to be about as effective at stopping spam as drug laws stop people from getting high.

Spam cartels

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft only wants to put the rogue spammers out of business so they can secure a lock on their hotmail and MSN users, whose addresses they sell to mass marketers. (Guess what? Turning on Hotmail or MSN "Spam Controls" only opts you in to their junk mail)

This is just a battle of the spam cartels

Re: Geekpower

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill: "I'll give you the geekpower if you arrest the bastards.

Congratulations you've coined a new term (geekpower) in my vocabulary. May the geekpower be with you. :)

Re:I just want to know what netblocks the spamers

[Anonymous Coward]

Be sure to block 128.0.0.0/1 and 0.0.0.0/1, just to be safe.

mod parent up!

[Barbarian]

mod parent up!

Re:I just want to know what netblocks the spamers

[Frennzy]

This still doesn't prevent the spam from sucking up your bandwidth. By the time the packets hit your firewall, *all your BW are belong to spammer.* It also eats cycles on your firewall. Both of these things still cost you money, and does not discourage them from continuing.

Re:Guantanamo Bay... - firing squad

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

Hey, Christ said to eat his body and drink his blood

I'm pretty sure that was a bad translation or something. I mean, the Catholics have about the most boring religion there is. The most exciting part of it is getting off of your chair and get a piece of candy without taste (whatever it's called in Engrish).

OT - Re:Spam Ring

[DarthWiggle]

Well, the funny part is that it took that many comments to find one. I mean, I thought surely we'd be suffering from a raging case of Ring Around the Slashdot for the next week or two...

I'd like to tip my hat to the slathering hordes who managed NOT to make a RoTK joke for at least 20-25 comments.

Anyway, today I likened seeing a former quasi-boss' transformation during the course of his divorce to watching the Smeagol-to-Gollum transformation (spoilers? I hope not...), so something's definitely catching...

Also, the first thing I thought of when I read "Spam Ring" was something really, really gross... like "Goatse meets Milkshake" or something... I mean, it was bad. Very bad.

(This post brought to you by ADD for Amer...oooh, pretty lights...)

Microsoft on the side of the angles?

[auric_dude]

If the spammers are using Microsoft software to send the spams then are not Microsoft contributing to the problm and be in the dock with the spammers?

Re:Microsoft on the side of the angles?

[Jadrano]

In this case, the accusation against Microsoft is not justified. Probably, there should be a better technical solution, but as the situation is now, any platform has to offer the possibility to send e-mails. It may be true that most spammers use Windows tools to send spam, but bulk mailers can just as well be programmed for BSD or Linux, and it even seems to me that these systems would in principle a bit better for sending large amounts of e-mails. Address harvesters aren't specific to any platform, either, as long as someone can write a program that crawls the web - and that has to be possible with any useful operating system -, they can also program address harvesters.

Re:Microsoft on the side of the angles?

[Anonymous Coward]

and if they are using linux, who goes in the dock?

Re:Microsoft on the side of the angles?

[JuggleGeek]

That's like blaming Ford because a burglar used one to drive to the house he robbed.

MS isn't selling software to send spam or to harvest addresses. Their OS is quite popular, so I'm sure it's used by some spammers, but any decent programmer using any other OS could still create spamware. Do you really think that no spam is sent using Linux systems? Apple?

Re:Guantanamo Bay... - firing squad

[nelsonal]

Wafer, its a piece of unlevened (no yeast) bread, that Jews ate during the passover, which was occuring at the same time Jesus was crucified.

Re:Guantanamo Bay... - firing squad

[chimpo13]

I dunno. I got a lifetime of Catholic guilt, so it can't be that boring. Madonna (the singer, not the mom of god) made plenty of money with her Catholicism schtick. Spanish Inquisition, that's always entertaining. Even without the Monty Python references.

Lutherans, now that's pretty boring.

Law suits icky

[donkeyoverlord]

They suck almost as much as I do

Scott Richter and OptInBig

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not a troll. I am posting this anonymously because I do not wish to get a bunch of hatemail from those of you who have already made up your minds in this case.

However, I know (from first hand experience) that Scott runs a pretty legitimate business. He respects opt-outs. In fact, even if you just reply to his mail he removes your address from his list. The messages he sends do not contain forged headers or forged From lines. The domain names of the servers used to send mail actually do exist.

In my opinion, the real people we need to shut down are those mailing from trojaned computers, or dropping off loads of email from open relays in Korea. These are the people who are abusing the email system the most, and eliminating folks like Scott will have no impact on the messages these types of people send.

The moral of all this is to actually READ the privacy policy at the sites you give your email address to. Make sure that they aren't opting you in to lists you don't want to join. (This is especially true with opt-ins for "general preferences" like shopping, pets, finance, etc.) Make sure that the companies you opt-in with do not own your email address and that they don't share your information with their "marketing partners", BEFORE you sign up. When in doubt, just use some throwaway hotmail or yahoo address to sign up if you really want the mail that bad.

Re:Scott Richter and OptInBig

[JuggleGeek]

However, I know (from first hand experience) that Scott runs a pretty legitimate business. He respects opt-outs.

Opt out is not a reasonable solution. I receive 400-500 spams every day. I'm not going to waste time trying to opt out of all of those.

He's sent spam for porno sites, enlargement pills, mortgages, and many different "get rich" schemes. He's bounced around from IP to IP to keep people from blocking him. Does a legitimate business need to do that?

You are either outright trolling, or you are seriously deluded.

It figures

[Anonymous Coward]

Those basterds at M$ will do anything to get money, next they will be legally doing business. The hackers should be offended no end on this one.

A Cheap Trick

[jazman_777]

Microsoft and the Attorney General of New York have announced multiple lawsuits against what they term as a spam ring operating throughout New York and responsible for sending billions of illegal junk e-mail.

This is just a cheap trick that Microsoft is using to get my sympathy. It's working.

Re:WILDCAT CAPTUARED TEH FLAG! BLUE TEAM ON TEH SP

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, who are you? You posted this into my journal and I responded, but I guess you didn't read it.

Truly an American icon.

Eliot Spitzer & spam - extreme solution

[bkasanoff]

Woke up this morning, read about Spitzer's suit against spammers, and wrote about one (radical) solution to this problem. The story is called Time-Starved, and it's online at www.nowpossible.com

Of course not.

[raehl]

But we certainly do like it if we have two enemies, and Enemy #1 and Enemy #2 spend their resources against each other, even if Enemy #3 (litigious lawyers) stand to profit.

"bad" email

[zentigger]

how about e-mal...

Bzzt!

[tacokill]

Wrong on the Oklahoma account. Not sure about Idaho (but doubtful)....but you are right about Utah.

To my knowledge, Utah is the only state that still has a firing squad. OK uses lethal injection.

Re:Bzzt!

[chimpo13]

I did a quick google search and it said the Okies would switch to lethal injection if the firing squad was declared unconstitutional. If it is unconstitutional, when did that happen?

Google showed Idaho still has the firing squad.

Looking through Gary Gilmore's eyes....

Re:Bzzt!

[tacokill]

Not sure on that...but, I can decidedly say that OK uses lethal injection. There may be some arcane law that allows them to use the firing squad but AFAIK, they don't.

Note: I grew up in OK and have strong ties there. I have *never* heard of any criminals being executed via firing squad. All have been injected with the the state's "love" potion...

Re:Bzzt!

[chimpo13]

I reckon it's an arcane law, but I think it's still an option. So instead of Bzzt! you should've titled your post "asterisk".

I've just been to OK City, but I've always wanted to go to Tulsa. Someone told me it was built up mostly in art deco. 10 years of wanting to go to Tulsa... What's wrong with me?

Re:Guantanamo Bay... - firing squad

[whorfin]

a little cannibalism among friends never hurt anyone

These guys certainly agree with you. Yet still, the survivor is on trial.

3 biggest spammers

[Anonymous Coward]

Scotty Richter + Synergy6 + Coldspark.com = The Biggest Spam Haus of All Time.

Take a look at ROKSO

spelling

[Anonymous Coward]

Seperately is spelled separately. I've seen that so much online recently.

Re:Guantanamo Bay... - firing squad

[zulux]

For my next shot, I'll pick on Catholics for believing they actually eat the body of Christ and drink the blood of Christ. It's not just wine & bread once it's been consecrated. Most Catholics don't think about that, but ask a priest about it.

In the bad old days, Catholics would burn you at the stake if you though that the wafer was just a wafer and that the wine was just wine.

More info about transubstantiation

Where was the C&C warning on this???

[Eggplant62]

I'm in the middle of a community college library, trying hard not to laugh out loud at the news that Snotty Richter is going to get a taste of the legal hammers of NY State and MSFT combined. Remember, the current AG in NY, Eliot Spitzer, is the same fellow who sued spam factory Monsterhut in 2002. Monsterhut had sued PaeTec, their ISP, after service was withdrawn for AUP violations for their mass emailing. Monsterhut prevailed in front of the first judge in that case, however an appeals court ruling overturned that verdict. The whole legal mess pretty much left the principles behind Monsterhut, Todd Pelow and Gary Hartl, financially ruined (yay!) so that they easily closed their doors and ran. I've not heard an update on the story but if you can ping me on NANAE (Rev Egg Plant), I'd love to hear.

Go hardcore

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw lawsuites. Somone needs start a collection, and hire a team of blackhats to track down the top 50 or so major spammers. Then they need to hire another team of thugs to go make examples of the spammmers (ie, violent public humiliation). Don't just limit it to the US based spammers either- hit go after them in as many countries as possible so that they will feel that there is nowhere to hide.

You Can Break "invisible bulletproof"

[NetworkImpossible]

If you are a major provider, it's quite possible to bugger up. Do NOT pass DNS traffic (udp originating at an arbitrary unprivileged port, terminating at port 53) across your peering points to arbitrary hosts.

You set up your own caching NS to never issue forwards to another NS. (but forwards go from 53 to 53).

Of course, the spammers will react to this by using non-standard ports, and probably by turning zombied machines into their DNS-poisoning faux servers. But that's no reason not to do it.

Of course, a certain large OS software vendor's inability/unwillingness to address security except as a PR problem for whitewashing, is why there are skillions of zombied boxes out there, and an important part of why spam is burgeoning. Still, they're doing better than the nineties when their 'security chief' was some bozo with a PR background.

Probably not running spam filters...

[billstewart]

You only need those if you accept inbound email and don't immediately auto-discard it all. It's not likely that humans actually read anything, as opposed to autorespondering that you should call a salesdroid.

Let 'em

[RexDevious]

Tell ya what, try to spam me at:

Me@RandyHamilton.com

Go on, give it a try! I wrote some wicked filters which have knocked out 100% of the hundreds of spams I used to get, while still allowing automated receipts, newsletters, and long lost friends to get emails through to me from notoriously spam heavy services; while bouncing everything else to oblivion. So see if you could so much as one email through without doing anything that would be too expensive to do for even 100 other people using the same system. Betcha can't! (I know, giving a challenge like this to slashdot readers who are VERY likely to be smarter than me is practically suicide; but it's very lonely being the only guy who never gets any spam anymore).

On a side not, Elliot Spitzer ROCKS!!! I love this dude! I think I'd ask for a refund from any candidate I contributed to if they didn't at least ASK him to be their VP. We need to clone about 2,000 more of him. We fill out our own DOJ, then sell the rest for a billion a pop to erase the deficit.

That's usually Interstate Commerce - Feds' job

[billstewart]

Lots of states are making laws against spam, which let the legislators tell their constituents that they're Doing Something About It, which could theoretically lead to more votes if anybody got enough less spam to notice. In practice, almost all spamming is interstate commerce, and therefore the US Constitution puts it under Federal jurisdiction, not state. There are occasional places like California where a spammer based there might be annoying an email user in California to sell products from companies that are also based in California (mostly porn-website spammers), but it's rare.

State laws against spam usually make bogus attempts to claim that the spammer somehow is under that state's jurisdiction, and usually make bogus attempts to claim that the spammer should have known that the annoyed recipient is located in the state, but they're basically stretching most of the time. The main exception is for products that are sold by actual multi-state companies, e.g. if some Detroit car company marketing-critter were spamming about why you should by their product, they'd reasonably be under recipient-state jurisdiction because they've got dealers in the recipients' state, even if the message got emailed from Detroit or Korea.

It's way too easy for spammers, even under the new US Federal You-Can-Spam law, to generate cut-outs at the expense of a couple of disposable corporations. The corporations do contracts with each other absolutely guaranteeing not to ever ever spam, at the cost of not getting paid their commission, optionally with one of the corporations outside the US, and the worst penalty that happens is that if the direct spammer gets caught, John Ashcroft gets to burn their corporate charter papers at the stake but the real beneficiary has a nice paper trail indicating that they're perfectly innocent and they're shocked to find spamming going on in this establishment. And then they got spend another $50 for another disposable corporation and give them a contract requiring them to never ever spam again like their evil twin Zut did or they'll be spanked also.
A typical cutout situation is that New Jersey-based FakeViagra Inc sells a dozen cases of product to Bahamas FakeViagraByMail, Mon, Ltd, which isn't a dealer, it's just a supplier to health food stores. You can bust them, but not very effectively, and they can disappear if they want.

And while we're talking about battling spam...

[fuzza]

... I can't see any mention of this (last 4 or 5 paragraphs) in the archives. I can't believe no one bothered to submit it...

I discovered it yesterday, and like Cringely, the more I thought about it, the more I liked it. I might make its implementation my New Year's Resolution. (Gee, having a New Year's Resolution would also make a good New Year's Resolution :)

Obviously there are some addresses like sales@ which it would be inappropriate for, but for the rest of us...

Re: Hotmail

[LunarOne]

I've noticed a dramatic downturn of spam in my hotmail account. Could it be that spammers fear a concerted Microsoft effort to stamp them out more than any other?

openseason@wekillspamers.com

[NotQuiteReal]

Has anyone else sent their PayPal dollars to the subject site, or have I been spammed?

Since no one has been removed from the list of known spammers, I assume the account just hasn't gotten big enough, yet.

Legal note: I don't condone actually killing spammers. Any monetary contributions I may have made are intended soley for legal defense funds and coffee for anti-spam organizations, not for the hiring of vicious thugs to brutalize and kill spammers.

Have you compained to abuse@ today?

[rs79]

What if we all did this?

In almost every technical community I belong to (which is many) spam is the overwhelming # 1 problem. We've tried everything; few things work well and at the end of the day there's still a large amount of incoming data I pay for (94% last month) that had to get here just to be filtered out. I operate a lot of mailing lists, some of which are older than some of the people posting here and operate many many public legacy addresses. I get about thousands of spams a day to my own personal mailbox, about 40-100 a day make it through my filters; if I maintain them in near real time only about 30 a day get through. There are several hundred addresses here with similar spam loads. Unmetered commercial connections are almost unheard of here in Canada, I pay by the byte. This is starting to get very expensive.

While I do spend time every day fighting spam I will admit to having been lax about sending mail to abuse@-the-usual-offenders.domain

Is it worth trying to organize a concerted effort to organize, at the very least, the /. community to write to abuse@ for every single piece of spam for at least a week, and perhaps longer - maybe a month.

I realise this won't help the coopted PCs, but I'd be happey to get verizon, comcast, attbi and the like to do something. My mail filters are bidirectional; they apply to both ingress and egress. Nobody has spammed from any of my servers, ever. (I don't have dialin users and am very careful who I hand out accounts to. I have to know you well for you to get an account here)

If every ISP had egress filtering and spammers lost their connectivity very quickly there would be no spam.

Somebody is providing connectivity to these spam happy people and there are far more of us than there are of them....

There may be a price to pay for this. The more active anti spammers I know get an abnormally large number of attempted breakins and hacks.

Forwarned is forarmed. But I think perhaps it's worth a try.

Re:Have you compained to abuse@ today?

[ozzee]

There may be a price to pay for this. The more active anti spammers I know get an abnormally large number of attempted breakins and hacks. Forwarned is forarmed. But I think perhaps it's worth a try.

Yes, this is scary. Many spammers are outright criminals and will stop at nothing to snuff this out.

That's why I think we need small "cells" and we need to hit the merchants where it hurts. If you build a trust network where you put in place schemes to fight spammers and then you basically communicate in stealth mode when spammers don't know who is who.

The other thing is synchronization. If 100,000 people did what I did yesterday all at the same time, (somthing like Critical Mass in San Francisco) do you think that these merchants would be a little concerned, expecially before big retail times like Christmas. They would drop the spamming lead generators in a heart beat.

Here is one scheme, set us some honey pot email addresses. Harvest spam for a few weeks and then scan the spam for "Lengthen your R0D" posts and place them on a temporary server where all participants take one. In other words, the worse the spammers are, the worse they're hit. Since I collect thousands of spam posts a week, this is easy. The other thing is that for each of these emails we make sure we "opt out".

I'm sure we can do this. Almost everyone I know is motivated, they just don't know what to do.

Anyone in or around Cupertino, CA motivated enough to get this started ?

I think it would need a little cash, it may also work as a 501c3 (tax exempt donations). This would go to pay for servers and domain registrations. It would be nimble in that when the server is attacked, another would just pop up and the spammers would be wasting their time hitting a dead IP. Also since each cell has no knowledge of each other, if one cell is compromized (i.e. spammers start attacking the cell) then we know that the cell contains a spy and we retarget the members of the cell to go and create new cells.

As I mentioned before, the credit card companies are today unwittingly aiding and abetting. If they become aware that a particular merchant is using SPAM they then become full accomplices. The 501c3 money can be used to start civil class action lawsuits against them if they do not co-operate.

I can create a plan but we need to remain anonymous to the spammers.

Is anyone willing ?

Re:Have you compained to abuse@ today?

[rs79]

send me mail

Re:Have you compained to abuse@ today?

[rs79]

I'm doing some research on a few things.

Got it.

My newsfeed is hosed. no usenet for me, for now.

Re:Have you compained to abuse@ today?

[ozzee]

My newsfeed is hosed. no usenet for me, for now.

You can use Google.

Usenet with PGP would be good.

Huh?

[rs79]

Does anyone else recognize Slashdotters by their sigs more often than their user names?

You people have names ?

There's an easier way

[HiggsBison]

...that way I can just block them at the firewall.

Just pass a law that spammers have to set the evil bit.

Not Flamebait - Funny

[PReDiToR]

This is /. after all, we all hate MSFT, even when they are being the good guys.

Right?

OT: Sigs comment

[PReDiToR]

I feel that in the digital age when muscle and ink are no longer required to name a thing, names of one word are too common to be unique.

The obvious solution is to use numbers, but thats way too big brother.

Longer names seems to be the way to go. Quotes and .sigs are hellishly descriptive and give an insight into the person who uses them.

OT: Sigs comment

[PReDiToR]

Nice sig.
Reminds me of another I saw recently ...

OT: toggling Flash in Mozilla

[edgarde]

(Sorry to respond to yr sig, but you got no email address for me to take it private.)

This feature already exists as a Firebird plugin:

http://texturizer.net/firebird/extensions/#flashcl ick

I just tried this in Mozilla and it seems to work okay. My last Moz update was v1.6a nightly 20031014, two months old now -- enjoying Firebird nightlies these days -- so YMMV.

I feel that in lieu a plug-in control -- as described in the Bugzilla report to which you link -- the ability to disable Flash belongs to either the Flash plug-in itself (not that Macromedia will add this feature), or a browser extension (as linked above), not in the browser itself.

Also, the controls spec-ed out in the Bugzilla report might be too hard for the average (i.e. dumb or lazy) user.

Re:OT: toggling Flash in Mozilla

[Erik Fish]

Thanks for the info, however I have to disagree: Plug-in toggling belongs in the browser as much as Java and JavaScript toggling (if not more so, these days).

It seems that browser plug-ins are all developed with the assumption that the user will always want to have them fully enabled. Considering the annoyances they can cause (and I'm not just talking about ads) this is an unfortunate assumption that should be correctable at the browser level.

Furthermore, the average user is lucky if he can get his e-mail. I wouldn't worry about him being confused by the interface for this because he'll never find it.