Slashdot Mirror
NYT on Spam Cops
yet another coward writes "The New York Times reports on new measures against spam. (Sperm sample required, sorry ladies) Microsoft has increased efforts to track and prosecute spammers. Hotmail receives 2 billion (2 * 10^9) spam messages per day. In a twist of weirdness, the Direct Marketing Association is funding investigators who cooperate with the FBI on spam investigations. Spamhaus also gets a mention."
Jeeze, my Optonline single account gets about that per day.
Come to think of it, I suppose if I got that many free samples of Viagra, I could start my own Pharmaceuticual company.
The problem with spam is that it's too easy to send. With even a 56k modem you can fire off MANY messages in a matter of minutes. I think a good solution would be on the ISP end of things, and have them throttle connections to port 25 on remote machines. There will always be plenty of open relays, as idiots who just want to allow access to their mail server as quickly as possible will usually just allow relaying from everybody. The spam "hash sites" are great, but the problem with them is not enough people actively submit spam for them to be as effective as possible (not to mention there are numerous, non-centralized ones)
Hopefully, some day people will realize bulk mail isn't effective, but for now, since it is so cheap and easy to send, nothing is going to stop it anytime soon.
Props to GNAA!
In a twist of weirdness, the Direct Marketing Association is funding investigators who cooperate with the FBI on spam investigations.
sounds like phillip morris funding anti-smoking campaigns.
No Need - plenty of other sources out there.
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
for Mr McBride.
/. first.
Now that's a
Stories like this seem to indicate that spam is becoming more of a "real, get sent to jail" kind of crime with cops and detectives tracking done spammers. Naturally one hopes that violent criminals won't be neglected by this new focus on spammers. Nevertheless, the prospect of real jail time and big fines may deter some from entering the spam market.
Of course, one effect of rounding up the stupid ones will be leaving behind to true spam geniuses. Going after those guys and girls should be real entertaining. Heck, maybe there's a reality based tv show in there somewhere. So you heard it from me first! Anyone got Fox's phone number?
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
What makes you a lady can't acquire sperm samples on demand and in larger quantity than any given gentleman can produce on his own?
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
> When he hunted down escaped prisoners for the United States Marshals Service
"I didn't send that spam!"
"I don't care!"
Damned one-armed spammers...
Oh dear, worse than spam is hundreds of thousands of Slashdotter sperm samples winging their way to NYT...
oh man, Mr. McBride and Microsoft in the same story and its actually a good thing? My head hurts.
if you think this is bad, you should have seen my last sig
Of course, they'd probably stop investigating if any of the products actually worked. Then they'd stay at home in their mansions and satisfy their wives and their wives friends and neighbor ladies and ...I'm walking away from the computer now.
If they ever find out who 'Napoleon Talley' is, could someone please tell him that I'm willing to take him out for dinner (before he gets prosecuted)? His spam e-mails changed my life!
The public DNSBL service will remain free.
This notice on their site makes clear what uses of their materials is acceptable. Reposting verbatim to other sites is definitely not.
Moderators should not be encouraging this type of behavior by making them "insightful". Slashdot should respect other peoples copyrights, don't forget how evil violating the GPL is.
Slashdot Moderation: From positive to terrible in 2 "insightful" posts.
Microsoft has increased efforts to track and prosecute spammers.
: //POS_SPAM.com
S PAM2.com
Stop letting people use your redirect service to spam. You too Yahoo, you hear me?!!!
http://g.msn.com/0US!s5.31472_315529/HP.1001?http
http://rd.yahoo.com/barrage/card/ovum/*http:/POS_
How about we start prosecuting services that allow people to spam through them, huh?
When submitting a story from the NYT, the summary with the wittiest "registration required" comment will be the one that is selected. Who cares if you can offer up any extra insight. Keep this in mind next time you find something /. worthy. Comedy rules, dammit.
The Tools Of Ignorance wanna be a tool?
Sperm sample required, sorry ladies
/., and that looks a bit unprofessional for the front page.
This is kind of off topic, but does anyone else feel that the New York Times, "registration required," jokes are getting a little out of hand. I mean, the first time someone said, "soul sucking registration," it was pretty funny, but now it's just getting lame. I think it's gone the way of the step 1 step 2 step 3 profit jokes.
No offence intended to whoever posted the article. I'm sure they were just joking around, but a lot of people read
I think the real issue is the poster's assumption that there are females here on Slashdot.
It's time for some RICO investigations! Let's throw some people from ISPs and banks into the mix as well -- spamming and scamming really is a racket, and these people need to do some hard jail time. Dragging in people from the "legitimate" business world will go a long way towards making spam hard to do and keep spammers from the support systems they need to do business.
The banking angle is especially important! If these scammers can't do credit cards, they will be hard pressed to run their businesses. While I'm sure there are people dumb enough to send cash, most people can't be bothered to do that much work.
Not all direct marketing is spam, of course they want to get rid of the idiots who hurt their industry.
Circuit City emails me flyers all the time, because I've bought stuff online from them. That's direct marketing - but it's not spam. I also reasonably believe that if I opted out, they'd stop sending it.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
I'm walking away from the computer now.
I got an interesting one yesterday. It came into my hotmail account, which is set to "only allow users from my contact list." The address, which wasn't in my list, was listed as from microsoft.com. It was a bit hard to read due to heavy obfuscation (to avoid filters), but it seemed to be advertising underage pr0nography.
I'm assuming that it didn't come from an actual MS address... but one must wonder since if hotmail is simply allowing any email claiming to be from @microsoft.com that's pretty dumb. Not sure how to view headers in hotmail either, and I don't really feel like forwarding something so file to my home account to check them.
MS's online contact thing isn't working either, so I can't ask them. Anyone have any ideas?
(normally I wouldn't bother, but the fact that this spam is particularly vile and somehow manages to bypass a whitelist makes it a special case for stomping)
knock, knock, SEARCH WARRANT!
Boom...cop breaks down the door
cop: Freeze Spammer Scum!
spammer: I didn't do anything
cop: allright put your hands on the Monitor and spread 'em
Spammer: looking jittery
Cop: Put down the the mouse, put it down NOW!
Spammer: makes a run for it
Cops: run him down in half a second (you don't think spammers are fit do you?
later in interrogation - Detective: Arey you gonna talk Spammer?
Spammer: Never
Detective: Bring in the logic probe
why can't the companies that are paying for spam be targetted for prosecution/persecution? They can't easily hide since they have to engage in commerce, AKA money changing hands, to do their business, thus requiring valid contact information. Just follow the money.
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
Yes, let's pay people to spam. Then a bunch of businesses and individuals who wouldn't even touch spam before now see a business opportunity.
Member of Orkut? Annoyed with spam?
Obviously these are the wonderful Nigerian, and now apparently Democratic Republic of Congo, email scams but his point was that these were frauds and to never respond to these emails.
My question has always been not why aren't we going after these people (well, not these people because they are in a foreign country) because the products they are pushing are fake but rather why aren't we going after them for using a false identity?
Just a thought.
Regardless of whether this was posted for karma or to benefit other users here, it is still copyright infringement.
Cool - then just do it this way then.
Made from This Page.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Not much of a twist at all, despite many of the above comments. Just grok this: the DMA hates spammers. No, really. I know someone who works for a company that's part of the DMA, and spam is her biggest headache. While we all hate commercial e-mail in general, the DMA is made up of companies who want to play by the rules. True, they want to have a hand in writing the rules as well, but the rules are pretty good ones. No faking your source IP addresses or From: fields. Always have an Unsubscribe feature that actually works. And so forth.
Spammers make the DMA's life a living hell. It's impossible to have a conversation with most people about legitimate commercial e-mail because illegitmate spam is such a pain (I just deleted 20 spams, vs. three real messages in my Lycos mail). With an annoyance like spam, no one even wants to hear the DMA's side of the story. So the DMA's members get blocked from sending e-mail by many sysadmins (like me).
If all commercial mail conformed to the rules that the DMA advocates, no one would complain to ISPs about commercial mail because the power to prevent it would be in the hands of the recipient. Just click Unsubscribe and you're free and clear. Until spammers go away, that's impossible because no one trusts Unsubscribe links. It shouldn't surprise us that the DMA will do anything they can to prevent spam.
How come I can read the exact same article by simply going in via another entrance.
The common google affiliated link to all NYT stories is a gaping hole in their DNA sample taking policy.
I do however agree about posting the whole article, but news is news, and it should not change depending upon where you read it.
Same subject - if a story is submitted to slash, and it includes a link to an NYT story obtained from google - a perfectly valid news linking service, would Slashdot editors remove the google portion of the link and try to force us to signup?
liqbase
Just tell em that the spams with random characters are really secret encrypted messages by terrorists ,and that will quickly get the spammers a 12 year holiday at Camp Xray.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
At some point, the spam wants money, mainly by a credit card. Why not set up a credit card account only to be used to purchase whatever product the spam is touting, and follow the trail to the account collecting the funds.
Its done for drug busts, so I know the Feds have cash, at least, they have a lot of mine. Put it to use!
Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
Actually spamd on OpenBSDdoes a great job stopping spam
I used to get around 300 messages daily, all of them spam. Now I only get 1 or 2 every two days.
The best way to predict the future is to invent it
If you don't wish to register you might consider visiting here also.
OK, this is tangential to the topic, but... My spam has increased by almost 10x just in the last couple of weeks. Now, well over 1000 a day! Many are the same message over and over and over. The only thing I did recently was upgrade to the new version of SpamKiller... coincidence? Anyone else seeing this?
Of course Microsoft wants to fight spam, or more accuratly spam where the spam 'provider' has not paid Microsoft. Now MS has set up there white list system where spammers (sorry, advertisers) pay MS for sending spam (sorry, adverts) they want anyone who sends unsolicited email to pay them - that way they dominate the spam (cant get the hang of this, sorry advertising) market. By fighting non-MS spam they are simply increasing there dominence on the world in yet another way.
#1. Buy the pills (in the article, they're already saying that they do that) and pay with a CHECK.
#2. Find the bank that accepted the check.
#3. Call the local field office and have them meet with the bank manager.
#4. Local agent picks up the name, address and social security number of the person who has the account that deposited that check.
#5. Profit?
Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundation.
No thanks. I'd rather not continue to allow for the "Chosen One" attitude that both GWB and our beloved RWR felt the need to indulge in.
By filing lawsuits known as "John Doe" suits, in which the identity of the defendant is not known, Internet providers are able to subpoena records from banks and others to determine the identity of spammers.
Someone tell me how this is different than what the RIAA has been trying to do with the ISPs getting John Doe warrants to find out who's behind the P2P violations?
Project Slam-Spam?
Does this mean project CAN-SPAM has be canned by the slam spam plan?
i cant beleive its been panned. man. i was its biggest fan.
------
beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
Your post advocates a
(*) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante ( ) lack of an
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(*) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(*) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(*) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(*) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(*) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
(*) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(*) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
(*) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(*) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) No-lists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
(*) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(*) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
Well, I guess there are a lot of problems with spam. My problem with spam is that I receive hundreds of spams a day. Our company uses a very nice spam filter, and almost of these things get labeled as spam, buried in an attachment, and a local filter moves them to a 'probably spam' folder. But since there are hundreds of them per day, and in order to read them I have to open the attached email, I don't read any of them, I just delete them. So, my email used to be 100%, but the spam's gotten so bad that now its only about 99%. Small chance there, but if you send me an email, I might not get it. Meanwhile, I have to make it less convenient for everyone, everywhere to send me email. I used to have my email address (a different one, it was overwhelmed with spam long ago) right on my web page. That thing got so many spams that I had to quit using it. So now I have a gmail address on my web page, but not a convenient 'click here to email me' sort of thing. Rather just a description of what my email address might sound like, and if you can figure it out, launch your email client, type in the solution to this little puzzle, *then* you can email me, and... then I might get it, because if it doesn't make it past gmails spam filters I'll never see it. I've found myself relying on web-board forum postings and the like for that sort of non-spammed email communications. The best way to reach me now is to post on a forum I visit with "HEY YOU, READ THIS!" as the title. Crazy. To the point though, is email, as a concept, just fundamentally flawed? I've thought about putting a convenient clickable email address on my webpage that requires an occassionally changing subject-title 'password' in order to actually be delivered. i.e. The first time you send me an email, you have to put [password] in the subject. If you don't, then I won't ever see the email. Once I receive the email, then I'll add you to a contact list which allows you to email me without the password. Then if I ever get spam with the password for the subject, then I'll change the password. If you are in my contact list and I get spam from you, then I'll delete you from it. But that still wouldn't work, would it? I mean, I'd still get whatever viruses-spawned emails spoof your email address or use contact lists for distribution... And I'd never be able to use the email address for things like registering accounts with online newspapers. I'm making the assumption that most spammers get their email lists from those guys, no matter what they say. If they're sharing my email address with anyone, they're sharing it with everyone. Anyway, this battle with spam seems like a lost cause. I'm thinking the problem is with email. Like, we need something else.
Jeff Freeman
Filtering port 25 keeps users from using their own machines to send spam, or from spammers using the machines that have been infected with some worm to send spam.
The SMTP server doesn't need to require authentication because your ISP (should) only allow relaying from IP addresses administered by your ISP. It would be nice if they offered it though, but it's not necessary from their point of view.
All of your Internet traffic goes through your ISP. This means they can monitor ALL your traffic, not just mail...if you're concerned that your ISP is reading your mail, encrypt it before you send it. Even if your ISP supported authentication, since they control the server they could still monitor your email.
That goes for any of your other traffic too...if you don't want them to view it, encrypt it.
If they want to shed the stigma of e-mail marketing, they must embrace opt-in. End of discussion.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.