Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Wins $3.95 Million from Spammer

LehiNephi writes "A Washington, D.C. judge fined Daniel Khoshnood, a major spammer, for pretending to be Microsoft in order to attract customers. Specifically, he registered windowsupdate.com (not to be confused with windowsupdate.microsoft.com), then sent out mass email encouraging users to download a toolbar from that website. Although the suit was not specifically about spamming, the mass emails (and subsequent complaints) were what caught Microsoft's attention. So far, Microsoft's campaign against spam has netted them $54 million from six judgments, one dismissal, four settlements, and two bankruptcies. The article doesn't mention whether the toolbar actually lived up to its claims of automatically applying security patches."

169 comments

  1. Beware! by KI4BBO.org · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Spammers beware! :) Yeah, thats some pretty cray stuff, I dont see why windows wouldn't have registered windowsupdate.com.... I dunno :)

    --


    _____
    Josh Powell - www.ki4bbo.org
  2. I have to say... by xigxag · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It seems rather dumb of MS not to have registered windowsupdate.com in the first place.

    --
    There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
    1. Re:I have to say... by KI4BBO.org · · Score: 4, Funny

      yep, thats what I was saying, but now it belongs to them.. so I guess alls well that ends well :)

      --


      _____
      Josh Powell - www.ki4bbo.org
    2. Re:I have to say... by betelgeuse-4 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most companies probably don't want to go down the route of registering all the keywords related to their business to stop third parties abusing the fact that the words are well known and recognised. If they did then scammers would use mispellings and 1337 variations, it could cost quite a bit to register all of them. For MS it's possibly easier to take just to take legal action when abuses do occur.

    3. Re:I have to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll take care of him when I have mod points...

    4. Re:I have to say... by arvindn · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm not at all surprised by that, considering that Microsoft can't even remember to register their own domain names ;-)

    5. Re:I have to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      On the contrary, many large companies do exactly that. My employer, Intuit, has registered thousands of domain names (including misspellings and variations) for this very reason.

    6. Re:I have to say... by GerbilSoft · · Score: 1

      Didn't Microsoft have windowsupdate.com a while ago, then they dropped it when the Code Red worm (or another one, I forget which) was introduced because it had code for a DoS attack on windowsupdate.com?

    7. Re:I have to say... by PatHMV · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It would "cost quite a bit"? Do you understand how much money Microsoft has? Do you understand how expensive their lawyers are? They could register 10,000 domain names with a fraction of the interest they make on their money in an hour. I really don't think the expense is why they didn't do it.

    8. Re:I have to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
      This article seems to be mistaken. The domain ownership for windowsupdate.com, according to NSI (no link to their evil whois-substitute), is:
      Microsoft Corporation
      Carolyn Gudmundson
      One Microsoft Way
      Redmond, WA 98052
      US

      Other articles on this story say that the spammer used the domain windowsupdatenow.com, which is owned by:
      Windowsupdatenow
      8975 hoello
      brazil city, brazil none
      BR
    9. Re:I have to say... by TheGavster · · Score: 5, Funny

      Registering a domain name is negative money. Letting someone else register it and then suing them is positive money. You might even be able to get the domain thrown in with the settlement.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    10. Re:I have to say... by 0WaitState · · Score: 2, Funny

      They did register windowsupdate, but did it on RealNames(tm).

      --

      Remain calm! All is well!
    11. Re:I have to say... by xigxag · · Score: 1

      Indeed. They could register 10,000 domain names for approx. US$50,000/yr, which is "don't even bother to pick it up if it drops out of your pocket" change to Microsoft.

      And apropos of this:

      http://www.mocrisoft.com/

      --
      There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
    12. Re:I have to say... by Colonel+Angus · · Score: 1

      Why bother registering domains when you can just sue someone who uses one of "your domains" and get $3.9 million in return. Now that's ROI.

    13. Re:I have to say... by betelgeuse-4 · · Score: 1

      Expense isn't necessarily that only factor MS would consider with something like this. $50,000 would go on a budget somewhere each year as a cost that doesn't give any returns. However legal fees can be recovered if a case is successful (depending on where the case is decided and specific details of the case) so they could a make a profit going down that lawsuit route. The profit would be small compared to MS's total revenues and profits, but a small profit is still better than a loss.

    14. Re:I have to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's possible that the domain has already expired and MS have registered it. But the "now" explanation seems more likeley.

      If it was just windowsupdate.com, he wouldn't need to send spam: millions of people type that in every month to get the latest security patch.

    15. Re:I have to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Not to mention that companies often try to register all possible sites that critics would want.

      Verizon tried this, but missed VerizonEatsPoop.com.

    16. Re:I have to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong.

      Registering a domain name is only negative $5 to $10 a year. How then is sueing someone, which costs thousands to millions of dollars, end up being more positive than registering?

    17. Re:I have to say... by TheGavster · · Score: 1

      Apparently it was +$3.59M in this case. Obviously, you don't hit that much on every case, but not registering a domain is cheap both in design (don't really have to choose to not reg one) and implementation. Obviously, there's significant overhead in the legal department, but being a multi-billion dollar monopoly can help with that. Worst case, charge $1 an install on SP2 to recoup fees.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    18. Re:I have to say... by icebike · · Score: 1

      Its only positive money if you win, otherwise it costs you millions for nothing.

      Just keeping some on staff to look for "infringing" registrations costs about the same as keeping a low-level cog on staff to maintain all registrations for your company.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    19. Re:I have to say... by oconnorcjo · · Score: 1
      It would "cost quite a bit"? Do you understand how much money Microsoft has? Do you understand how expensive their lawyers are? They could register 10,000 domain names with a fraction of the interest they make on their money in an hour. I really don't think the expense is why they didn't do it.

      Yes but if MS spent money on stupid shit like this as a common practice, they would not be making the money they are. And I am sure MS made a hefty profit on the spammer lawsuit and I am sure they are looking forward to the next lawsuit to hit someone with stupid enough to do this. These lawsuits make MS look good and it makes money for them. MS is making profit off of not registering those domain names but you would suggest they waist money to stop spammers from making MS money (by registering every concievable windows/MS name). I think MS has the right idea on this issue.

      --
      I miss the Karma Whores.
    20. Re:I have to say... by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 1

      This just proves why it's a pointless waste of time and money to try to register domains such as abccorpsucks.com. You'll never think of all the possible permutations, and if someone wants to put up a hate site about you and your products, they will. That's the downside to living in a country with free speech.

    21. Re:I have to say... by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "For MS it's possibly easier to take just to take legal action when abuses do occur."

      At $8 bucks a domain, MS would have been ahead to register those domains compared to the cost of one court case.

      On the other hand, though, they did send a message to other domain squatters out there. Like or hate MS, that was a good move.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    22. Re:I have to say... by eeg3 · · Score: 1

      They probably had to give windowsupdate.com to Microsoft as part of the judgment.

    23. Re:I have to say... by Orick · · Score: 2, Funny

      It was actually windowsupdateNOW.com.

      Of course, it is interesting to see a bunch of slashdotters actually taking a pro-microsoft stance on something. Must be getting pretty chilly for the devil about now...

      --
      Dust Devil Reviews

    24. Re:I have to say... by iDrifter · · Score: 1

      It boils down to the lesser of two evils.

      --
      This message was done on 100% recycled electrons.
    25. Re:I have to say... by rnd() · · Score: 1

      windowsupdate.com used to redirect to windowsupdate.microsoft.com... i'm not sure if the spammer had it set up that way to train people to type the wrong URL, or if Microsoft previously owned the domain and then let it expire...

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    26. Re:I have to say... by KevinKnSC · · Score: 1

      Would they have made almost $4 million that way?

  3. Re-distribute the cash? by FyRE666 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Obviously it'll never happen, but it would be nice if all the proceeds of these victories against the scumbags were given to anti-spam projects and organisations to develop more robust hosting (to deflect spammer/virus author DDOS attacks) and improve the filtering software. It would also really annoy the spammers to see such projects getting massive cash injections ;-)

    I recently added rbl support (spews and spanhaus), spamassassin and the mimedefang milter to our company incoming mailserver and it's REALLY making a difference! Since I have a corpus from hundreds of people too, the bayesian side is already extremely good. It still lets the odd scam through, but being a company I can't afford to block anything by accident.

    1. Re:Re-distribute the cash? by Myrmi · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Microsoft has recently won a large lump sum of money from a spammer, and is redistributing the money to customers who may have been affected by his spam. In order to claim your money, forward this email to ten of your closest friends within the next 15 minutes"

      --
      "I think everyone is an agnostic but just doesn't know" - Frazz
    2. Re:Re-distribute the cash? by Chatmag · · Score: 1

      What company site is this you speak of? Is it Javascript-games.org which is in your info? What is the point of adding rbl support to a site that does not exist, but is up for sale?

      --
      Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
    3. Re:Re-distribute the cash? by FyRE666 · · Score: 1

      ;-) No, that was my personal site, until I forgot to renew the domain name and it was grabbed by the current owners (I missed it by 3 days ;-( ). I've only just remembered to change my sig...

    4. Re:Re-distribute the cash? by Chatmag · · Score: 1

      Thanks for clearing that up. :)

      --
      Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
    5. Re:Re-distribute the cash? by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      You sig might be updated, but your info still has the old web site.

    6. Re:Re-distribute the cash? by leeward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I would guess that the claim Microsoft's campaign against spam has netted them $54 million from six judgments is likely false. They may have been awarded $54 million, but collecting is always another matter. I would not be surprised if the total collected is just in the thousands. And that likely is less than the legal costs, meaning their net is probably a negative number.

      Of course, that is pure speculation. I have no facts to back it up. But then again, this is /.

    7. Re:Re-distribute the cash? by anti-trojan · · Score: 1

      I downloaded MAME roms from your site a few years ago. Too bad you seem to have closed that section.

    8. Re:Re-distribute the cash? by Crispin+Cowan · · Score: 1
      Just purchase a Microsoft product, and the price will have been reduced infinitesimally due to the revenue Microsoft realized from this victory :)

      Crispin

    9. Re:Re-distribute the cash? by FyRE666 · · Score: 1

      I'll open it for the weekend - I stopped it because it became impossible to use my ADSL line as it was saturated 24/7... I'll see how it goes now that Google doesn't have it at the top of its list ;-)

    10. Re:Re-distribute the cash? by jtmas83 · · Score: 1

      I would highly recommend NOT using spews...they don't keep their records up-to-date, causing their list to be quite inaccurate. At one point, SPEWS even blacklisted the entire internet because there was a DDOS attack against one of their servers

    11. Re:Re-distribute the cash? by Desert+Raven · · Score: 1

      Actually, their lists are kept quite up to date. I watch the listings pretty closely, and have seen listings cleared within four hours of an ISP giving a spammer the boot. Just because YOU don't think the listing is accurate, doesn't make it true.

      As for "the entire internet" being listed, yes I remember it. It was an error, and it was cleared up relatively quickly. Tell me you've never made an error before?

      People complain about SPEWS mostly becuase they expand listings if the ISP does not terminate the spammer. In cases like that, SPEWS considers the ISP to be complicit in the spamming. As for me, I have no sympathy for folks who bitch about their ISP's space getting listed. After all, they're paying money to a company that supports spammers.

      Yes, I've been caught in a SPEWS listing before. My ISP got stupid, and didn't take action when a customer of theirs was spamming. I got on the phone to my ISP every day until they got it taken care of, letting them know in no uncertain terms that if they didn't, I would move elsewhere. It wasn't SPEWS fault I got listed, it was my ISP's fault.

  4. "Microsoft Wins $3.95 Million" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Talk about conflicted. I'm not sure who to root for. Did the spammer use Linux?

    1. Re:"Microsoft Wins $3.95 Million" by vadim_t · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd say neither.

      Remember, the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.

    2. Re:"Microsoft Wins $3.95 Million" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      And even worse, now MS has to adjust their accounting to handle values 10,000,000. Ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaa.

    3. Re:"Microsoft Wins $3.95 Million" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did the spammer use Linux?

      Who cares. Fuck all spammers, I hope they rot in hell.

    4. Re:"Microsoft Wins $3.95 Million" by Kiyooka · · Score: 1

      That begs the interesting question: How many read news like sports? (to scratch eachother's backs?) How many to actually learn what's going on?

  5. A victory is always a victory... by Reverant · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...even if its for Microsoft. Personally, I would prefer that the money would go to, say, Spamhaus, for giving us the XBL and the SBL.

  6. heh by tisme · · Score: 1

    I am glad this was the final judgement. This website caused me some grief having to fix up my parent's computer and get them hooked up to a new email address. Anyone know if MS has said they will give the winnings to a charity?

  7. How do we feel? by Ensign+Regis · · Score: 5, Funny

    So, what do you do when evil is fighting evil?

    1. Re:How do we feel? by foidulus · · Score: 1

      So, what do you do when evil is fighting evil?
      Didn't they do a He-Man episode about that very same topic?

    2. Re:How do we feel? by DrLZRDMN · · Score: 1

      leave them alone and let them destroy each other.

    3. Re:How do we feel? by LeahofRivendell · · Score: 1

      Like in FPS, watch them kill each other, then run in and finish them both off.

    4. Re:How do we feel? by Biogenesis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A house can not survive if it is divided within itself, only good can come of this.

    5. Re:How do we feel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You congratulate the winner, then stab them in the back...

      Come on, hasn't everyone taken the cloak and dagger classes? I thought those were mandatory in high school.

    6. Re:How do we feel? by tabby · · Score: 0, Redundant

      kill them all and let god sort them out!

      --
      I've experiments to run, there is research to be done on the people who are still alive.
    7. Re:How do we feel? by Slider · · Score: 1

      Is the enemy of my enemy my friend? Or my enemy?

    8. Re:How do we feel? by Natestradamus · · Score: 0

      Neither. To quote Schlock Mercenary, "The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. Nothing more, nothing less." Which, if you think about it, would've been good advice to give to Reagan before he sent aid to Saddam.

      --
      The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. --Edmund Burke
    9. Re:How do we feel? by Pugflop · · Score: 1

      Let them fight it out and kill the weak one.

    10. Re:How do we feel? by stor · · Score: 1

      So, what do you do when evil is fighting evil?

      You break out the popcorn and caffeinated beverages.

      Cheers
      Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
    11. Re:How do we feel? by Ari_Haviv · · Score: 1

      King Kong vs Godzilla. I always wanted Godzilla to win. Actually he does...in Japan

      --
      Join Team Mozilla #38050 Folding@home
    12. Re:How do we feel? by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      So, what do you do when evil is fighting evil?

      Let them get on with it for a while, then get some badass trees to stomp the spammer, while sending a couple of midgets to melt down some of Bill Gates' favourite jewellery.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  8. The secret formula! by MavEtJu · · Score: 5, Funny

    1. Write a popular mail client which automatically executes arbitrary code.
    2. Sue the people who hijack PCs via the above mentioned mail client.
    3. Profit!

    The enemy of my enemy is my friend...
    I feel confused.

    --
    bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
    1. Re:The secret formula! by mz2 · · Score: 1
      Well, as fun as that sounds, it's still quite far from the truth. It's more like
      1. Write a popular mail client which automatically executes arbitrary code.
      2. Sue the people who hijack PCs via the above mentioned mail client.
      3. Profit from network related business a bit less than you would without the infinitely repeated security problems and the bad press it gives.
    2. Re:The secret formula! by the_mad_poster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What the hell are you talking about? If you'd bothered to open up the article and, you know... READ it, you'd see that 1) they "profited" because this idiot registered a domain name in violation of their trademark and 2) there was no hi-jacking - the moron "victims" had to download the toolbar entirely of their own cognition.

      I don't know what this has to do with any mail client other than the fact that the guy happened to be sending e-mails for his little scam...

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
  9. Re:This is helping them more than most of their pr by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While I have not RTFA here (hell, this *is* /.), I would also have tended to want to side with the Redmond lot on this one.

    Registering a website with that name so he could send spam, he deserved all he got. What Microsoft do with the money is another matter.

    This is an example of what I would consider fair use. Not sure that they have updated it in the last 10 years though :-)

    --
    Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
  10. Re:This is helping them more than most of their pr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I highly doubt that microsoft would see much more than a few thousand dollars of that $54 million. It is just a number to possibly scare off any large companies who may try to do the same thing. They may now stop seeing that a ruling against them could bankrupt their company.

  11. Support from /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now I hope for once, that M$ will get support on this from the /. crowd. Who does not have my belief?

    1. Re:Support from /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this mean that Bill Gates will finally send me the money that he owes me for sending those emails?

  12. windowsupdate.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't one of the recent worms (maybe Nimda?) target windowsupdate.com for a DDoS attack?

  13. confussed 101 by laserbeak · · Score: 0, Redundant

    so what do us slashdotters do now, MS beat a spammer, we hate both, but the hardest part is coming up with a discision on who to flame!!!?

  14. A suggestion by lxt · · Score: 4, Funny

    As one of those who reported this to Microsoft, perhaps I should get some of the settlement? Don't suppose that's likely though...

    1. Re:A suggestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure Thing.

      Just post your email address on here and we will send you information on obtaining your portion of the settlement right away.

      - Microsoft

  15. Classic dilemma by Alien54 · · Score: 4, Funny
    punishing spammers = good!
    rewarding Microsoft = bad!

    why am I so split over this?

    [set headbangmode = 1]

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:Classic dilemma by johannesg · · Score: 2, Funny
      This is definitely good. I mean, I hate Microsoft as much as any slashdotter, but once their Windows and Office monopolies disappear under a flurry of penguins (nasty stab wounds from those beaks, btw, but I digress) I wouldn't really want to see all those poor, misguided souls who work for them to lose their jobs. So maybe this is a first step towards a new, gentler (unless you are a spammer) Microsoft, one that is appreciated and praised by all (except spammers) for providing a vital public service. The new Microsoft, Guardian of the Network, Defender of Standards, and Tireless Destroyer of Software Patents and Copyright Extensions! They'll even have their own Linux distribution (Linux XP?) and GPL all of their current Windows source!

      Of course, until that day comes, feel free to continue bashing them. I know I will ;-)

  16. Isn't that... by Zx-man · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    ...a perfect occasion to flood & flame @ the /. ?

  17. So what? by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Like all fines that criminals get, this one will make little difference, and Microsoft will never collect.

    These law suites are good for victim satisfaction, but will not stop spammers, and in both the large and small of things really have no effect at all on spam.

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
  18. This has very little to do with spam. by ezraekman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While I think it's great that yet another "identity thief" (sort of) has been busted, this does little to stem the flow of spam. What we truly need are more cases that are strictly based on the sending of unsolicited commercial e-mail. We've got some great and not so great legislation out there to protect us... why aren't we using it? Because it costs too much?

    And yes, I know that there have been a few landmark cases recently, but a few big falls aren't going to convince spammers as a whole to stop spamming. An concerted effort to shut them down via thousands of small lawsuits from you and I would be much more likely to have an effect, in my humble opinion.

    1. Re:This has very little to do with spam. by pilkul · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Internet Explorer. IIS. Exchange Server. The Swiss cheeses of the Internet.

      Sendmail. WU-FTPD. BIND.

      I mean, not that I'm a fan of Microsoft, but aren't you being a little selective in your choices of hole-riddled software?

    2. Re:This has very little to do with spam. by ezraekman · · Score: 1

      A) It's intended to be mildly humorous.
      B) It's an edit of a quote from The Register.
      C) New holes are often discovered weekly for these packages.

      I mean, come on. It's just a sig. It could've been worse. I can't believe I'm wasting time defending this.

  19. Hmmmm, does this mean.... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    ....that the linux community can do the same?

    1. Re:Hmmmm, does this mean.... by minas-beede · · Score: 1

      MS probably sued as the owner of Hotmail.

      The Linux community can run a proxypot:

      http://www.proxypot.org/

      No positive cash flow, but devastating effects against spammers. On the brighter side, no time spent with lawyers and courts: it's all Linux. The bigger goal is to end spam. Collecting cash settlements (which proably drive the spammers into bakruptcy) are just one aspect of the larger battle.

      You've got to look at:

      http://www.proxypot.org/reports/pacman

      This is how spam fighting is done. At the intermediate level, not at the final server. (Sure, keep on blocking and filtering - but if you don't see by now that those two approaches together haven't ended spam you aren't looking very well.)

  20. Re:obnoxious troll by zogger · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    He does not appear clueless to me. Let's see your site for comparison.

  21. cash? by davids-world.com · · Score: 3, Interesting

    i am wondering if that means that M$ is actually getting those 3.5 million bucks from him, or more than 50m$ from all the spammers.

    Did the guy keep a couple of millions in the attic, just in case? Or is he broke, struggling to pay his lawyers..?

  22. Slashdot MS Borg icon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Wow with all the "How should we feel?" questions, I'm suprised its microsoft with the Borg icon.

  23. commentary by zogger · · Score: 1

    although it is not unique in being a news and commentary site, it is a very large site, with discussions being the primary resource here. That's the difference, you can go read news all over the net, but some people wish to have discussions about it. Given that thousands of news articles appear daily across the WWW, the editors can only fit so many into the pages and still have enough of a base to handle the discussions adequately. If all you want to do is read news, why bother coming here and posting a complaint? Shouldn't you be out reading more news someplace else?

  24. /. moral dilemma by thecombatwombat · · Score: 4, Funny

    In other news, SCO wins $699 from Satan, Lord of Lies.

    Yep.

  25. the court by zogger · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The 54 million should go to the people who downloaded and installed the bogus-ware, the spam victims. MS certainly doesn't need it, and they don't deserve it from being lamers and not registering an obvious domain for them in the first place..

    So let's flame the court system and the judge.

  26. Microsoft wins settlement by ekstasy · · Score: 4, Funny

    "In normal times, evil should be fought by good, but in times like this, well, it should be fought by another kind of evil." ..Come on, I had to.

  27. I actually feel a little nauseous. by Gannoc · · Score: 0, Redundant


    Microsoft... and LAWSUITS.. and... sweet Jesus. This is a good thing!?

    I feel the same way I would if Osama Bin Laden gave me a preview copy of Half Life 2 - conflicted and bewildered.

    1. Re:I actually feel a little nauseous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Osama Bin Laden gave you a preview copy of Half Life 2, hopefully you would contact the FBI or some other law enforcement agency to report contact with a wanted terrorist. In the ensuing investigation, the game would be confiscated as evidence. So, no need to feel conflicted. ;)

    2. Re:I actually feel a little nauseous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and use that 25 million dollar reward to make you own new game with a company you create.....

  28. Re:Well, now we know why they're interested by Zocalo · · Score: 5, Interesting
    How did this spammer, or any other spammer, directly hurt Microsoft?

    Well Microsoft does get to pay Hotmail's bandwith bills, email storage costs, and employ people to deal with abuse reports? Don't forget that they also get to deal with all the spam that is undeliverable, bounced, or dropped by user's filters etc. Per individual spam, Microsoft may well be paying less than a recipient, but there is definitely a very real price tag attached.

    Unfortunately however, under CAN-SPAM, only ISPs and not end-users can use the legislation to go after spammers through the courts. As the owner and operator of Hotmail that would naturally include Microsoft. Of course, the statement that the actions has "netted them $54 million" means the courts have awarded them that much, they will actually see far less of it than that.

    It would certainly be nice if Microsoft (and others in a similar position) would make at least a token contribution to the anti-spam groups out there. Spamhaus operates almost entirely on contibutions and sponsorships, Spamcop has a legal defence fund, Spam Assassin is now under the auspices of the Apache Foundation... the list goes on.

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  29. Re:Am I my keeper's brother? by minas-beede · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's unclear what you mean, but have you seen:

    http://www.proxypot.org/ ?

    They don't sue the people (yet), but they do try to get ISPs and LEAs interested in the evidence collected. Often the ISP approac succeeds. It is also useful to create a list of ISPs who will not act on abuse reports.

    As a bonus, none of the spam that the spammers try to send through them reaches any victim.

    For this approach "popular mail client" is meaningless. Spammers don't start with a list of mail servers, they start with the IP address space and go looking for abuable servers (for proxypots the abusable entities are open proxies.) What is run doesn't have to be a real MTA (or real proxy server), just look enough like one that the spammers accept it as one. For the cleverer spammers it is useful for it to look exactly like some historic abusable MTA, like many of the earlier versions of Sendmail. Whether you need to gear your attack to defeating the cleverer spammer isn't known, but it's probable that you can have a huge effect just by going after the dumbest spammers (that's a big group.)

    It shocks me that (1) so many people don't know how spammers operate and (2) so many of those who do know (that is, recognize that spammers have to look for systems to abuse) never seem to be able to grasp the importance of that knowledge. It's like knowing a burglar favors basement windows but doing nothing to set a trap for a basement window burglar - just bitch about all the people with insecure basement windows. Stake out a few basement windows and some evening soon you may be face-to-face with he burglar. Stake out a few IP addresses and some time soon you may gather information that leads directly to the spammer's IP address. Poof! There went the supposed anonymity.

  30. Re:Well, now we know why they're interested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Give me a break. $54 million is pocket change to Microsoft, and there's nothing "quick" about our legal system.

    Internally, spam hurts Microsoft as much as it hurts any other company that depends on email for their day-to-day operations. Externally, it makes Hotmail and MSN email accounts much more expensive to provide.

    No doubt Microsoft is not acting solely for the public benefit -- I'm sure they're seeking some good PR from their campaign against spammers. But to ascribe their actions entirely to greed and to say spam doesn't hurt Microsoft is asinine.

  31. I thought as much by zogger · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I figured you didn't have a site, nor anything even remotely cool to share, just an anonymous large nasty ego.

    seeya, you can have the last word.

  32. Re:obnoxious troll by the_mad_poster · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Yea.. whatevever, I'll toss the troll a bone for my own amusement...

    So, in other words, you're a fifteen year old kid sitting at home in front of your computer posting on slashdot on a Saturday morning?

    I have seven years on you, four jobs, some schooling, and I've been out of the country on occasion whereas you haven't been out of your room in ten years. Yet, somehow, the adults should consider you - king of the blackheads - an authoritative resource on social response to education? You can't even find anything better to do with your time than post on Slashdot on a Saturday morning (go ahead and try to call me on doing the same thing - I dare you). Why should we believe you're worldy enough to have ever even met another PERSON outside of your family, much less one who's been homeschooled?

    A lot of children your age are considering some other options. Maybe you should, too?

    --
    Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
  33. Wow, I misread the title as... by Maxite · · Score: 1

    "Microsoft Wins $3.95 from Spammer" Darn those cheap spammers!

    --
    Ah, you found me!
    1. Re:Wow, I misread the title as... by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      "Microsoft Wins $3.95 from Spammer" Darn those cheap spammers!

      Probably that's closer to what they'll actually collect. If the spammer has a brain, he's put his money out of reach. Maybe he could lose his house or car, but that's easily put in the name of a spouse or relative. OJ Simpson had a $30 m + judgement against him but has barely paid any, while still enjoying golf in Florida.

  34. Someone was also using exploits in their name by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My room mate put a fresh windows install on the Net and had the RPC service exploited within minutes, with a dialog directing her to that site to pay for an "update" which would "fix the problem." It also installed a variant of some worm or other with some nasty back doors, which subsequent virus scanning and firewalling took care of. Nice to see Microsoft nail this asshole's hide to the wall, even if it's just a tiny grain of sand in the beach.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  35. Re:obnoxious troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, in other words, you're a fifteen year old kid sitting at home in front of your computer posting on slashdot on a Saturday morning?

    You sure are a quick thinker. Obviously homeschooled.

    have seven years on you, four jobs, some schooling, and I've been out of the country on occasion

    I guess that would be true if you replaced "jobs" with "eczema", "schooling" with "beatings" and "country" with "my parent's basement".

    You can't even find anything better to do with your time than post on Slashdot on a Saturday morning

    You're right, I should be doing one of those exciting Saturday morning activities like everyone else. Moron.

    Why should we believe you're worldy enough to have ever even met another PERSON outside of your family, much less one who's been homeschooled?

    Why should I believe that you're not watching gay nigger porn RIGHT NOW?

  36. No, he used BSD. by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

    I guess that it's not dead after all...

    1. Re:No, he used BSD. by Quattro+Vezina · · Score: 2, Funny

      I guess that it's not dead after all...

      No, he uses BSD, so his business is dying.

      --
      I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
  37. Well.... by CrazyTiger · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Microsoft is overreacting.I don't care if they hate canned meat,that doesn't mean they can sue those who make it.Next thing you know,they'll be suing grocery stores for selling Macintosh apples!

    *mumble*Idiotic food bigots*mumble*

    1. Re:Well.... by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      No, because Macintosh computers and Macintosh apples are two completely different areas of business. A better analog is Apple suing someone for buying up applemacintosh.com and distributing viral software through it.

      Although I do detect a bit of humor in your post...

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
  38. Re:What's wrong with creationism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then you're an idiot.

  39. Toolbar... by ideatrack · · Score: 5, Informative

    The article doesn't mention whether the toolbar actually lived up to its claims of automatically applying security patches.

    No but from this article on The Register:

    "In reality, the toolbar loaded a utility called called BrowserAid/QuickLaunch which bombarded users with random, unrequested pop-up ads."

    1. Re:Toolbar... by Analogy+Man · · Score: 1
      So in other words it did like Microsoft. The toolbar added functionality that profoundly affected the security of your system.

      Not in a good way, but they were "Security Patches".

      --
      When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
  40. Two faced...? by Whatthehellever · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ya know, as much as the /. community dosen't like Microsoft empire for one reason or another, this is one victory we can all applaud.

    Strange, isn't it?

    --

    ---
    IMHO, of course.
    May the SOURCE be with you.
    1. Re:Two faced...? by Ari_Haviv · · Score: 1

      yay! woohoo! Go Microsoft go! Bill you the MAN!

      ...

      ok Microsoft still sucks

      --
      Join Team Mozilla #38050 Folding@home
  41. Re:Well, now we know why they're interested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I want to know is: are spammers really making that much money that microsoft really collects that much from them??? I always thought spam had very low return, but are evil mass mailers really making _millions_??? Or do these judgements simply bankrupt the spammers?

  42. WindowsCleaners is next?! by Canadian+Idol · · Score: 0, Troll

    Spammers = bad yada yada yada

    But what about this:
    to pay Microsoft for violating the company's trademark and [i]profiting from the use of a domain named controlled by Microsoft[/i]

    Eh? Controlled by Microsoft? How?

    And this:
    Windowsupdate.com, a domain name that Mr. Khoshnood had registered in violation of Microsoft's trademark rights.

    Same old *Windows* = (tm) Bill story again. So I guess WindowsCleaners is next? (That domain is still available so I'm not spamming).

    --


    -
    My other .sig is a Mercury!
  43. That sound you hear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ... is that of thousands of Slashdotter heads simultaneously exploding.

  44. Re:obnoxious troll by the_mad_poster · · Score: 0, Troll

    Well hell.. if my subnet is going to be banned, I may as well troll to deserve it...

    Oh my. Such a powerful intellect I'm dealing with here. I'd better just accede the flamewar right now because I don't now how I could possibly retort in the face of that biting "gay nigger porn" comment.... oh wait, yes I do:

    You should know I'm not watching it because I don't enjoy watching your gay nigger daddy rape goats while he fingers your postule-encrusted asshole.

    You're right, I should be doing one of those exciting Saturday morning activities like everyone else.

    Hmmm. Good point. I've only seen one kid go by on a bike, a pack of three walk by talking, and a pair come back the other way laughing about something since I got up two hours ago. However, since you're completely socially inept, I guess we can rule out the last two options (unless recieving a savage beating counts as a social activity for the victim, in which case you're probably one of the most popular guys at your little boys' academy). I suppose the fact that you're a three hundred pound wanker who can't even see his balls without setting his flabby gut on a towel rack in front of a mirror rules out biking. Hmmm. Good point. You are too pathetic to participate in any Saturday morning activities...

    I guess that would be true if you replaced "jobs" with "eczema", "schooling" with "beatings" and "country" with "my parent's basement".

    Oh my. Wounding comeback. Please. No. Don't unleash that powerful wit again by spouting your droll, tired, bland insults. I mean, obviously, nobody has ever thought to use THOSE insults before. You're so utterly creative and unique. Did you learn that in the public school that I'M currently earning taxable income to pay for so that you can waste your entire, lifeless Saturday posting to Slashdot insulting people? You're a perfect example of why I support abortions. In fact, if I have one regret in life, it's that your parents didn't tie a bag around your head and leave you in the dumpster behind the trailer park after your mom squatted in the mud to squeeze your little trollish ass out.

    Game. Set. Match. Bitch. Now if you'll excuse me, unlike you, I have better things to do with the rest of my day.

    --
    Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
  45. when will we take security seriously? by fermion · · Score: 3, Insightful
    This stuff is partially the fault of the big companies. In this case MS has been harking on users for years that they must update computer the minute patches come out. They harangued customers that did not properly update machines, blaming such customers for all problems. However, they have only recently given consumers the tools needed to easily update their machines, and then only if the customer has broadband. This left a wide hole for someone else to exploit the fear. Fear that was created because MS chose to blame customers. This was especially true when update were erratic and most more common that today. The design on Windows led to the exploits. All MS had to do is take a bit more responsibility for their design decisions.

    I have noticed this with bank websites as well. When online banking first grew big, I got an email survey that asked for personal information and led me to a third party site. I asked the bank if the survey was legit and they said it was. More recently the bank started letting users log in from an unsecured home page. Passwords seem to be protected, but we now have introduced a system in which users are accustomed to submitted sensitive information on unsecured pages. This habit can only benefit the crooks. I mean the latest exploit, involving ads on bank pages, should have been identified early as a security risk. I guess the risk to customer was less than the greed of the banks.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:when will we take security seriously? by Cryect · · Score: 1

      hmmm Windows Update has been around for a while as long as IE4 I believe. And IE4 came out long time ago (Win98 if I'm remembering correctly).

    2. Re:when will we take security seriously? by fermion · · Score: 1
      Windows update is not that simple. It requires some level of user knowledge. The promotional updates are mixed with the critical updates. This has gotten better, but it used to make the process more difficult than neccesary. Likewise, at certain times update would not be installed but would be reported as installed.

      It has been only recently that MS has dutifully limited critical updates to security and implemented the process into the OS, a la Apple Software Update.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  46. Washington Times owned by Moonies cult leader by CracktownHts · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    For those who didn't know, the Washington Times has a very interesting background.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/long term/cult/unification/wtimes.htm/

    Just google for "moonies" for some even juicier information.

  47. Re:obnoxious troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, this is so cool. Years of homeschooling have made this guy bitter and now it's all coming out. But I'm not qualified to repair your broken brain. Either go to church and have it re-washed or see a shrink, you creationist scum.

    I mean, obviously, nobody has ever thought to use THOSE insults before.

    Well, if you hadn't spent so much time being homeschooled by your fat whore of a mother, you'd know that your insults are actually much less creative. My, sitting in front of a computer on a Saturday morning and accusing other people of sitting in front of a computer on a Saturday morning. Gosh. Socially inept. Sure never heard that one before.

    Did you learn that in the public school that I'M currently earning taxable income to pay for so that you can waste your entire, lifeless Saturday posting to Slashdot insulting people?

    Hell, yeah. Is that awesome or what?

    And before I forget: YHBT, HLB, FOAD.

  48. Microsoft vs. a spammer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I recall Henry Kissinger's comment on the Iran/Iraq War: "It's a shame they can't both lose."

  49. Works for me by Tekime · · Score: 1

    It doesn't bother me if MS wants to spend their time and money hunting spammers. I doubt their motivation lies solely with raking in millions from the defendants, especially since they probably will only collect a fraction of that money. In this case, it's probably less about spammers/scam artists in general as it is about protecting their intellectual property. Microsoft has their own selfish motivations for this whole "campaign", as we all would as executives forced to act in the best light of the company. I could personally care less what they are, though, as long as they're ousting the spammers. (And doing so through a legitimate means).

  50. Re:What's wrong with creationism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's something wrong with your beliefs if you find a simple statement of them a complete discussion in itself.

  51. Ever seen Jurassic Park? by Xhad · · Score: 1

    I was thinking more along the lines of the scene where the T-Rex busts in and eats the raptors before they can kill all the humans...

  52. My thoughts on that toolbar by dacarr · · Score: 1

    I would think that, if this guy had truly developed a windows update toolbar for IE, he would have notified Microsoft in the first place, and either gotten their OK, or just given it to them for their own deployment. But, knowing how this world works...well, spyware, anybody?

    --
    This sig no verb.
  53. Re:Well, now we know why they're interested by tc · · Score: 1
    Well, now we know why they're interested in going after spammers. To make some quick money - the reduction of spam that may result is just a small side benefit.

    Riiiight, because we all know that Microsoft has a cash crisis and needs every dime they can get. Why, that $60B they have in the bank is barely enough to meet payroll...for the next centuary.

  54. Actually, they did... by MadAnthony02 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Windows Update is owned by microsoft - in fact, it is one of the URL's that the blaster worm DOS'ed.

    According to this register article that someone posted, the website that the spammer registered was windowsupdateNOW.com

    1. Re:Actually, they did... by trs998 · · Score: 1

      windows-update.com also appears to be owned by some dodgy business.

      By the looks of it he's waiting for MS to make an offer.

      bloody annoying, as I typo that from time to time at work, when building PCs. We don't build them often enough to justify mucking about with an internal mirror.

    2. Re:Actually, they did... by WuphonsReach · · Score: 2, Interesting

      bloody annoying, as I typo that from time to time at work, when building PCs. We don't build them often enough to justify mucking about with an internal mirror.

      Which is a good argument for companies to use sub-domains rather then registering top-level domains willy-nilly.

      It's a lot harder to get hijacked if you mistype "windowsupdate.microsoft.com" as "windows-update.microsoft.com". So long as Microsoft maintains careful control over their top level DNS server.

      It's just a pet peeve of mine from the Internet "gold rush" days where every application from a single company suddenly got it's own top-level domain. When configuring whitelists (e.g. adding sites to the trusted zone in Internet Explorer, or other apps), it's a lot nicer to be able to say "*.intuit.com" rather then having to deal with "*.inuit.com", "*.quicken.com", "*.turbotax.com".

      Sure, if you want to register "*.quicken.com", that's fine, but it should've redirected to "quicken.intuit.com".

      (sorry, just venting)

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    3. Re:Actually, they did... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funny thing there are still lots of idiots on slashdot who believes they didn't. What a bunch of idiots.

    4. Re:Actually, they did... by Mr+44 · · Score: 1

      Sure, if you want to register "*.quicken.com", that's fine, but it should've redirected to "quicken.intuit.com".

      And that exactly what windowsupdate.com does! :)

  55. That patch bar by thephotoman · · Score: 3, Funny

    "The article doesn't mention whether the toolbar actually lived up to its claims of automatically applying security patches."

    If it really did, Microsoft would have a fit! Either that, or it'd automatically download and install the Linux distro of the writer's choice.

    --
    Haec merda tauri est. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
  56. The phony update site is still up. by Animats · · Score: 2, Funny
    The site is still up. Why didn't the court order it taken down? See WindowsUpdate.com.

    WARNING - do NOT click on the link above if you are running Microsoft Internet Explorer with Active-X controls enabled.

    1. Re:The phony update site is still up. by morzel · · Score: 3, Informative
      The site is still up. Why didn't the court order it taken down?
      Because it actually is microsoft's?
      The guy used windowsupdatenow.com. for his toolbar. (It's in the article... nkay?)

      Those who're running IE with active-X controls enabled should click on it... Perhaps get some more holes fixed :-)

      --
      Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
      [Zappa]
    2. Re:The phony update site is still up. by Animats · · Score: 1
      "windowsupdate.com" is a real Microsoft site? The HTML looks like something some dumb spammer would write. There's a NOFRAMES tag, but the page doesn't have frames. There's no BODY tag (which is why the page won't display in Mozilla). There's no CSS. There are no Microsoft Front Page indicators. The domain is in REGISTRAR-LOCK. Yes, the registrant info shows Microsoft's address, but you can put anything in there.

      Are you sure that's for real?

    3. Re:The phony update site is still up. by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      "windowsupdate.com" is a real Microsoft site? The HTML looks like something some dumb spammer would write. There's a NOFRAMES tag, but the page doesn't have frames. There's no BODY tag (which is why the page won't display in Mozilla). There's no CSS. There are no Microsoft Front Page indicators. The domain is in REGISTRAR-LOCK. Yes, the registrant info shows Microsoft's address, but you can put anything in there.

      (fires up Demon.net's net tools page)

      windowsupdate.com - WHOIS shows Microsoft being in control. No lock. DNS record looks like last updated on July 6th 2004.
      windowsupdate.net - WHOIS also shows Microsoft in control. No lock. DNS looks like last update March 2004.
      windowsupdate.org - WHOIS does show someone other then Microsoft. Registered Feb 2002, expires Feb 2005 by Jacco Tunnissen in Rotterdam, NL.

      Looking at the page body of www.windowsupdate.com, it's simply a text-only HTML page, but with a missing set of BODY tags. Probably due to the massive DDoS that one of the past worms inflicted. So they removed all graphics and tried to make the page as light as possible. (I am surprised it's not simply a META REFRESH pointing at windowsupdate.microsoft.com.)

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    4. Re:The phony update site is still up. by morzel · · Score: 1
      I doublechecked... The html indeed is not what should be expected, so at this time your guess is as good as mine... (doesn't look legit though)

      That should teach me from not trusting you tinfoil-hat types :)

      --
      Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
      [Zappa]
    5. Re:The phony update site is still up. by Animats · · Score: 1

      The domain is getting DNS from "MSFT.COM", so it does look it really is hosted by Microsoft. But the HTML is still wierd.

  57. Not really... by PatHMV · · Score: 2, Informative

    In most states in the U.S., there are only very few types of cases where the courts allow the prevailing party to recover attorney's fees from the losing party... which is assuming that Microsoft would prevails in every case, and would never have to eat a whole lot of attorney's fees in a losing case. Also, MS would not be able to recover the costs it incurred sending executives to depositions, having its executives keep track of the case, etc. Moreover, it is not going to be able to recoup its customer support costs and loss of good will (yes, MS does in fact have some with the general public) from customers who forgot that the site they needed to go to was windowsupdate.MICROSOFT.com instead of just windowsupdate.com, and then got screwed. Those costs alone far execeed the amount of money it would take to reserve 10,000 domain names.

    1. Re:Not really... by betelgeuse-4 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, but would those costs also exceed the money for 10,000 domain names + $3.95million. Also, they have to be the right 10,000 domain names. If they miss just one that's close enough to the real thing, a scam site could still be set up and the lawsuit option would be required. How much does it cost to work out the thousands you need to register and be confident you haven't left any out? You get customers who will be tricked into getting their 'updates' from fortunecity.com/members/microsoft/ or 80.123.45.67, their good will will be lost and lawsuits will be required.

  58. Sounds like a new business model by sentanta · · Score: 1

    for SCO

    --
    The Big Yuan - tracking mainland China
  59. Did the spammer get to by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    pay his fine in certificates for more spam, like M$ seems to get away with ?

    I work for a large company, many thousand of users and it was announced yesterday that MSIE was a LIABILTTYjust existing on the desktop and will be removed from ALL CORPORATE WORKSTATIONS. They have done some fairly extensive mod'ing to a Firefox build it looked like to me, and arranged an internal update system for redistributable packages from MS in the way of OS/OFFICE updates.
    May be smoke and mirros in the end but all I can think of is ABOUT FARKING TIME.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    1. Re:Did the spammer get to by angrykeyboarder · · Score: 1

      How are they going to eliminate Internet Explorer without eliminating Windows? Sure, you can remove shortcuts and set Firefox as the default browser, but as long as the OS is still Windows, IE will still be there.

      And if you're so concerned about Microsoft products why do you have a hotmail address?

      Hummm..

      --
      Scott

      ©20014 angrykeyboarder & Elmer Fudd. All Wights Wesewved
  60. Question by srenker · · Score: 5, Funny
    Microsoft Wins $3.95 Million from Spammer

    Did they click on the blinking monkey?

    --
    My new /. login is fabu10u$.
  61. Re:Well, now we know why they're interested by Tim+C · · Score: 1

    IMHO, the only people these spammers hurt are the average consumers who have to put up with hundreds of junk mail messages in the inboxes every day.

    Well, look at it this way - if the end users are getting "hundreds" of junk mails every day, how many hundreds of thousands are the ISPs and email providers having to carry and deliver?

    MS runs Hotmail and MSN; their bandwidth and storage charges due to spam are at least as great as those of their end users. Spam hurts everyone involved, not just the end user. About the only people who don't suffer because of it are the spammers themselves.

  62. Good... by mek2600 · · Score: 1

    ... cause Microsoft could use the money.

  63. revenue to offset their other legal woes by holy_smoke · · Score: 1

    so truly they will pay nothing for the judgements that went against them?

    --
    Is the juice worth the sqeeze?
  64. I would say that's probably correct by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Espically when it notes two bankrupicies. If the spammer declaers bankruprucy, Microsoft likely sees very little to nothing.

    MS isn't doing this to make money, I mean even if they had made $54 million, that's a drop in the bucket for their finances. They are doing it because spammers hurt their bussiness.

    We know that people are very bad at researching claims, hence if they recieve an e-mail climing to be from MS, they likely believe it. When that link then spywares their computer, they blame MS for it. Also a number of the e-mail viruses and worms have not only infected computers, but then turned them into little spam boxes. Since MS gets the blame when people virus their system (even when it was their action that virused it) it hurts their bussiness.

    MS really wouldn't care about spma over all, except that the tactics spammers use hurt their bussiness. Well, that means that even if they need to loose some money on lawsuits to cut down on spam, they'll do that. Same with with AOL/TWTelecom. It hurts their bussiness, so they are also suing spammers.

  65. Vouchers by Beige · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Maybe they should pay the fines in vouchers for spam. That's how microsoft likes things isn't it?

    --
    pandnotpian.org. The untruth will set you free!
  66. No, this and things like it will help by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Remember: Spammers are completely financially motivated. The reason they do what they do is because they can make easy money at it. Well, the biggest way to reduce the amount of SPAM is to make it less profitable. We cannot, unfortunately, stop idiots from bying from spammers. What we can do, however, is raise the cost of spamming through fines and lawsuits.

    If spammers are getting sued and arrested left and right, and loosing all their ill gotten gains from it, makes it much less likely they'll go back in to spamming in the future, and less likely that others will go in to it.

    This is different than drugs, because in the case of drugs, the dealers are providing something that people WANT to get. They want it to the point of paying an obscene amount for it, thus demand stays high. People DON'T want SPAM. Generally even those that buy form it don't want it, they are just gullible. So people will not seek out SPAM or pay obscene amounts for it.

    Thus if SPAM is a risky bussiness where one faces lawsuits, fines, and jail time, it is less likely that people will do it. It won't eliminate it, of course, you never eliminate something by making it illegal, but it can and will reduce it. Combine that with better SPAM filtering technology, which means less e-mail will reach potential buyers and again reduce profitability, a real dent CAN be made.

    The "we can't do anything so we might as well give up" attitude is stupid. Applied to all crime, you have anarchy. You can't PREVENT things by making htem a crime, that is impossible. You can REDUCE them, however, and that is worth doing. Just because murder happens I don't think you'll hear anyone saying we should make killing people legal since the law hasn't stopped it from happening.

    1. Re:No, this and things like it will help by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1
      Remember: Spammers are completely financially motivated.

      Remember, spammers operate outside the system. They could not care less about this or that or the other thing. Get real. Stop wasting your time. Filter it and forget.

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
  67. Good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like they can recoup all of the money they've lost in lawsuits by suing spammers.

  68. Daniel Khooshnood by dynamo · · Score: 2, Informative

    I worked for this guy for a few months. He is the most disreputable excuse for a human being I've ever had the misfortune to know. I was young and stupid and I worked on a verbal contract through a friend who worked for him directly, and an assumption of trust once I got past a few paychecks. My huge mistake. He kept asking me to give him time, and by the time I broke down and refused to work for him anymore until I got paid, he owed me 8.5 thousand dollars. I was broke at the time and couldn't afford the time or money to sue for what was mine, especially without a written contract. My mistake in trusting him singlehandedly ended my consulting career.

    This guy uses obviously program-generated lists of emails to basically spam every possible email address in several popular domains - aol, hotmail, etc..

    In case anyone wants to discuss his case,
    His cell phone number is (or at least used to be) 818-516-3999.
    His work phone number is (or at least used to be) 800-516-3999. I believe the phone was answered as "mainstream advertising".
    His email was dk@global2000.com, but I doubt it's still the same.

    I have a bigger grudge against DK than anyone. It is thrilling to hear of MS's victory in this case. it's nice to hear of them doing good for once!

    Anyone else out there know him? I know from friends that I am far from the only person who he screwed over.

    1. Re:Daniel Khooshnood by kmckenzie32 · · Score: 1

      I saw your post regarding Danny K. I would be interested in talking to you about the issues in your post. Please call me at 877-456-4462 or 212-489-7100. I can explain more off-line. Regards, Keri McKenzie

  69. SPAM IS NOT A PROBLEM by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1

    Unless you wnat it to be. Filter, forget. Spam IS HERE TO STAY. Fliter it, and forget. If you want to make it you "project" and get all bent about it, well, that's YOUR heart attack. Filter, forget.

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
  70. That domain belongs to microsoft by alex_ware · · Score: 1

    the domain Windowsupdate.com that the article claimed was the one used for spamming seems to belong to microsoft http://web.archive.org/web/*/Windowsupdate.com

    http://samspade.org/t/lookat?a=Windowsupdate.com
    Domain Name: WINDOWSUPDATE.COM
    Created on..............: Tue Jul 22 1997
    Expires on..............: Fri Jul 21 2006
    Record last updated on..: Fri Mar 26 2004
    Administrative Contact:
    Microsoft Corporation
    Carolyn Gudmundson
    One Microsoft Way
    Redmond WA 98052

    --
    If you have nothing useful to say post as AC.
  71. I just can't get it.. how stupid the people are??! by WaffaDrunker · · Score: 1

    I mean how many times Microsoft has sent out emails where they asked you to download some kind of tool bar? How many times eBay sending you email & asking to re enter your user information? How many times banks sending you email where they ask you to reEnter your online banking or VISA card information... ? & even if you really think that the email/webPage is not fake, how hard is to type the (main)web address to browser manually, like most big businesses ask you to do or make a simple call... I just can't understand why people are so ignorant, and we do not talk about kids, I mean adults. Ahh... Would be wonderful if people should pas a simple test before they can access to internet, it shouldn't take longer then 15 minutes to learn main thing, what do NOT do. If only Microsoft would leave Outlook default settings to "HTML off" It (all this and some other small simple thing) would save billions every year. ... Some companies invests hundreds of thousands dollars to the internet security every year... how about actually teaching that this is how the email works & this is how the internet works. & if ya see somewhere "ClickOnThisCoolFile.exe" that first thing what you should not do is click on that.

    --
    It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice!