Slashdot Mirror


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."

73 of 263 comments (clear)

  1. Are they by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

  2. You've got.... by Lipongo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Lawsuits.

    Goodbye!

    --
    -Certified TechnoWeinie
  3. In need of SPAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Please forward all spam to info@optinbig.com

    1. Re:In need of SPAM by Lizard_King · · Score: 3, Informative

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

      --
      "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." - Jack Nicholson
    2. Re:In need of SPAM by Alan · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

    3. Re:In need of SPAM by bmike78 · · Score: 3, Funny

      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. :)

  4. How about the people who hired the spammers? by jcr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:How about the people who hired the spammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Is anyone going after them?

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

    2. Re:How about the people who hired the spammers? by belmolis · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:How about the people who hired the spammers? by Liselle · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
    4. Re:How about the people who hired the spammers? by Rinikusu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    5. Re:How about the people who hired the spammers? by nametaken · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    6. Re:How about the people who hired the spammers? by CKW · · Score: 5, Interesting


      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.

    7. Re:How about the people who hired the spammers? by caspper69 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    8. Re:How about the people who hired the spammers? by jcr · · Score: 3, Informative

      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

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  5. hang em high by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:hang em high by Frymaster · · Score: 4, Funny
      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...

    2. Re:hang em high by pvt_medic · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      --
      30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
      Score:5, Troll
  6. AAaaah!! by GnrlFajita · · Score: 5, Funny
    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.

    --
    When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.
    Mark Twain
    1. Re:AAaaah!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  7. Let the games begin! by heironymouscoward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature
    1. Re:Let the games begin! by southpolesammy · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

      --
      Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
    2. Re:Let the games begin! by caseih · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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

    3. Re:Let the games begin! by Violet+Null · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Let the games begin! by gorbachev · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
    5. Re:Let the games begin! by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    6. Re:Let the games begin! by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    7. Re:Let the games begin! by Halo1 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.
      --
      Donate free food here
    8. Re:Let the games begin! by jpkunst · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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

    9. Re:Let the games begin! by wowbagger · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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.
    10. Re:Let the games begin! by JimBobJoe · · Score: 2, Informative

      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....

    11. Re:Let the games begin! by cpeterso · · Score: 2, Insightful


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

    12. Re:Let the games begin! by Steve+B · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

      --
      /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
  8. The Federal "You Can Spam" Law by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.)

    1. Re:The Federal "You Can Spam" Law by Davak · · Score: 4, Funny

      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

  9. I just want to know what netblocks the spamers own by AltGrendel · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

  10. Re:I just want to know what netblocks the spamers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

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

  11. Re:So... by Frymaster · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.

  12. Well... by jdifool · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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

    --
    Let's overcome our weakness.
  13. Hooray! by Erik+Fish · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Hooray! by Misch · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      Because we need to get a good tan?

      --

      --You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
  14. Boo-ya! by t0ny · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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!

    --

    Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

  15. Re:So... by lurker412 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  16. Spam Ring by Suit_N_Tie · · Score: 5, Funny

    One Spam ring to rule them all...

  17. Re:So... by danknight · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    --
    wanted: one clever sig,apply within
  18. Only when the reward is worth it by judd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  19. Excerpts from OptinBig.com by GillBates0 · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
  20. Re:I just want to know what netblocks the spamers by crawling_chaos · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    --
    You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
    -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
  21. I don't get it by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    1. Re:I don't get it by mabu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  22. Re: notoriuous? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Funny


    > What is this 'notoriuous'?

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

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  23. Fitting Punishment ? by StefanJ · · Score: 3, Funny

    * 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

  24. Spam fighting community by ozzee · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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 ?

    1. Re:Spam fighting community by ozzee · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

  25. Re:would it not be easier by Peyna · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    --
    What?
  26. Damned Microsoft!! by erroneus · · Score: 4, Funny

    No wait... Yay Microsoft!!!!

    I'm very confused...

  27. Re:Guantanamo Bay... - firing squad by chimpo13 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  28. Why criminalizing Spam is wrong by heironymouscoward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature
    1. Re:Why criminalizing Spam is wrong by Steve+B · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

      --
      /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
  29. More than a PR move by MadAnthony02 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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)

  30. Re:microsoft on the good team? by molarmass192 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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 $$$.

    --

    Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
  31. Re:would it not be easier by dmaxwell · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  32. Eliot Spitzer for President by sfjoe · · Score: 4, Insightful


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

    --
    It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
  33. News Flash: Most Wanted Deck of Cards by mykepredko · · Score: 3, Funny

    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

  34. They aren't charging anyone will anything... by MadAnthony02 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  35. Re:So... by sniggly · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.

    --
    Of those to whom much is given, much is required.
  36. This is good by ceswiedler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:This is good by Jadrano · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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).

  37. Re:would it not be easier by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

  38. Microsoft on the side of the angles? by auric_dude · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

  39. Where was the C&C warning on this??? by Eggplant62 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  40. You Can Break "invisible bulletproof" by NetworkImpossible · · Score: 2, Informative
    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.

  41. That's usually Interstate Commerce - Feds' job by billstewart · · Score: 2, Informative
    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.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks