Slashdot Mirror


Four Big ISPs File Six Anti-Spam Suits

ackthpt writes "Wired is carrying news that Microsoft, America Online, Earthlink and Yahoo are filing suits against spammers under the CANSPAM act. They will 'follow the money' to find the perpetrators and shut them down. Suits currently filed against John Does will have actual names attached once subpoenas get the names of the actual persons. I wish them all the luck, as I clean about 500 pieces of drek a day from my mailboxes." Other readers point to coverage from the BBC and from the Associated Press (here's the AP story as carried by the Boston Globe).

22 of 382 comments (clear)

  1. I wonder how effective this will be... by Zone-MR · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder what effect this will have on the number of spam messages we get daily?

    Six spammers is probably a drop in the desert, and shutting them down won't cause a noticable impact, but at least it's a start.

    1. Re:I wonder how effective this will be... by Like2Byte · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It'll probably be very effective considering that a few spammers are responsible for most of the SPAM anyway.

    2. Re:I wonder how effective this will be... by blurfus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But then again, if it is like local auto-theft (in this city anyway) where 5 thieves are responsible for over 80% of the auto-related crime, it could make a difference

      These six spammers *may* be responsible for (say) 50% of the spams. It is at least a good 'chunk' to make an impact (if that were the case of course)

      imho

      --
      will work for Karma
    3. Re:I wonder how effective this will be... by secolactico · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I bet it will have an effect, but more than likely the long-term effect will simply be to move even more of the spam off-shore.

      Yes, but will the spam beneficiaries move off shore (like some of the online gambling operators had to)? Unless they are willing to move also, the "follow the money" procedure will get to them.

      --
      No sig
    4. Re:I wonder how effective this will be... by MadelineAlbright · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Moving offshore will only work to some extent. If laws can be created that allow you to go after the companies who pay the spammers to spam, and we manage to stop the the local companies from paying for spam to be sent, then the only people left are offshore sales companies. But they really don't want to pay for international shipping for a few bottles of viagra, so spam should diminish a fair bit at that point.

    5. Re:I wonder how effective this will be... by Albanach · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Spamhaus reckon less than 200 spam outfits make up 90% of spam. So 6% would be a bit more than a drop in the ocean - and if they get caught and face big fines (or jail time) we could see an even bigger impact.

    6. Re:I wonder how effective this will be... by Otter · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I wonder what effect this will have on the number of spam messages we get daily?

      I realize I'm almost alone here in my sentiment, but -- the tide is turning on spam. It's simply making email unusable. Email is too useful and too important to ISPs, software makers and corporate users for them to allow a handful of morons to destroy it. Something has to be done and therefore something _will_ be done.

      I keep saying that here and am always surprised by how confident everyone else is for the spammers. I just don't get you guys -- we're all helpless in the face of big corporations but a bunch of dirtbags flogging V*!*a*g*r*a and Par1s H1lt0n V1d30s! can spit in Bill Gates' face?

    7. Re:I wonder how effective this will be... by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 3, Insightful

      predicted responses to the announcement:

      # "People will take their illegal business offshore, so we may as well not bother having laws"

      # "I filter everything, don't know what you're all complaining about"

      # "Only 6 spammers?"

      # "I use a challenge-response system, and haven't got an email since.."

      Or the usual best

      # "But all spammers must be Korean because the proxies they use are in Korea"

  2. Hope it works by Elpacoloco · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Used to be spam tried to tell me something. Now it's so clogged with filter-defeaters that they can't manage to squeeze in a message.

    Hope they recover at least their sysadmin's time.

  3. Can-Spam is not far enough though by RandBlade · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Good start, but it doesn't go far enough. Part of the law for Can-Spam they're being prosecuted under is the absence of addresses to get off a mailing list - but who is seriously going to click on a link if they are there? How do we trust them?

    This won't stop until spammers start getting locked up for years and people stop buying off them.

  4. 10 years from now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I expect my inbox to be filled with just as much spam and all the lawyers will be slightly richer.

  5. Re:Huh? by Cruciform · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not so much fighting evil, ask seeking to gain a monopoly on it :)

  6. So? by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hitler fought Stalin. Nothing new under the sun.

  7. Re:Push them underground? by Tripster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Umm, they are pretty much underground now aren't they? Considering the spammers are almost exclusively using the trojaned PC network to relay their crap I would say it is as underground as you can get.

    This "follow the money" routine will work, the spammers need to get paid at some point, and considering most of their income is based on amount of sales from the spam then you just need to have a nice chat with whomever is accepting the loot and sending the products.

  8. When Will They Sue Uunet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They are #1 on the SBL! 155+ spam gangs are on UUnet. We need to sue UUnet to get all the spammer money that they have received from he spammers that they host. I keep sending mail to as many email addresses of thiers that i can find. Damn spam supporters.

  9. 137 non-spam??? by mosel-saar-ruwer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    137 of which are non-spam

    You get 137 legitimate emails a day? How does that leave you with time to do anything other than read your email?

    Reminds me of my brief stint at IBM, circa 1996-1997: I could have spent literally an entire shift doing nothing but reading the utterly inane, purposeless nonsense that the higher-ups foisted on us every day.

    To this day, I contend that, for the vast majority of businesses, email [and instant messaging, and pagers, and beepers, and walkie-talkie/blackberry/802.11xyz thingamabobs] cause a net decrease in productivity.

  10. Re:We can only hope . . . by nizo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, if I understand this right, they are going to follow the trail to the actual person collecting money, so Jim Bob with his hijacked PC should be safe (until his connection gets unplugged, see earliers Comcast article). I can understand the ISPs being pissed at this, I mean imagine if they didn't have to handle piles of spam all day? It must be fun upgrading your mail servers all the time just to handle the 80% increase in spam.

  11. Re:What about us? by PhxBlue · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When was the last time the ISPs hiked up the rates explicitly because of the E-mail traffic they had to filter and handle? Call me old-fashioned, but I'd settle for the lower volume of spam that will result from this action The time I would save is worth more than a 50 coupon.

    --
    !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
  12. Re:spam by chimpo13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You aren't paying the postage for those CDs unlike spam. Junk mail is paid for by whoever is sending it.

  13. And the war to create "good spam" has begun by wayne · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Remeber that the You-Can-Spam act has penalties that are so small that only cost effective for the largest ISPs to can bring claims against spammers. So, only the largest ISPs can really decide which spam gets eliminated. Remember also that you can't bring any claims at all if you are not an ISP.

    There is a HUGE potential market out there for "good" bulk advertising out there, if only all the pr0n and scams can be eliminated. These large ISPs have an "existing business relationship" with all their customers, and maybe arguably with those that send email through their servers. Just think of how much these ISPs could make by sending "good" spam from Ford, Pepsi, Pfizer, or PlayBoy.

    --
    SPF support for most open source mail servers can be found at libspf2.
  14. Re:Huh? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    God, this joke is getting old.

    Look, people: there are no angels in this business, and everybody knows it. Microsoft is evil, spammers are evil, AOL and Yahoo! are only slightly less evil than the first two; also on the "evil" list are Apple, Sun, IBM, Dell, Oracle, Adobe, and, well, pretty much any company with yearly revenue in excess of $1 million. Every single one of them would dominate the entire business world, crush the competition, and eliminate all innovation that didn't translate directly into greater short-term profits if they could.

    What most of us down here at the bottom of the food chain understand is that it doesn't matter. We support companies -- whether "support" means buying their products or just cheering them on -- not on the basis of their moral purity (because there isn't any) but on the basis of what's most useful to us. If Microsoft spends some portion of its ill-gotten gains on cutting down on the amount of spam I get, that is useful to me, even if everything else they do is not only useless but actively harmful. There's no cognitive dissonance involved.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  15. Re:This should be at least amusing by Sloppy · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Most slashdotters seem to hate Microsofts army of Lawyers.
    You might want to look back. Microsoft is hated, but their "army of lawyers" has been pretty low-profile. When was the last time that army really made any significant trouble for the good guys? Sheesh, even Slashdot was able to stand up to them.

    It's the Microsoft lobbyists and salesmen that you have to worry about. Quit thinking of Microsoft as litigious assholes. It's not that I worry about people having ill-will toward MS, but if you think of them as litigious, you're just falling for a feint. That's when you get stabbed in the heart by their real weaponry.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.