Slashdot Mirror


Spam's U.S. Roots

ahab_2001 writes "Notwithstanding how tired my finger is getting from deleting all of those unsolicited messages from China and Korea, Information Week reports that a study of filtered messages by the spam-blocking firm CipherTrust revealed that some 86% of spam originates in the U.S. Apparently, a very limited set of IPs with high-bandwidth connections is dishing out the bulk of the spam, according to this study."

332 comments

  1. Yeah! We're #1! We're #1! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh wait, that's not a good thing in this case.

    1. Re:Yeah! We're #1! We're #1! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Is this the time to call for a Usenet Death Penalty against the USA? (Shouldn't be such an unfamiliar concept to you - you DO have the death penalty already...)

      That would at least reduce the spam in the rest of the world by 86%.

    2. Re:Yeah! We're #1! We're #1! by Crazieeman · · Score: 2

      I want to administer the death penalty to spammers. Please?

      At 120 emails/day, its a freaking chore to clean it out. I keep my gmail ultra-secret, but my bogged down one was used for important stuff before it became a spam-packed mess.

    3. Re:Yeah! We're #1! We're #1! by xanadu-xtroot.com · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is this the time to call for a Usenet Death Penalty against the USA?

      But don't we need UDP for somethings?

      --
      I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
      I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
    4. Re:Yeah! We're #1! We're #1! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      you can email him at:
      Crazieeman@gmail.com

    5. Re:Yeah! We're #1! We're #1! by thephotoman · · Score: 2, Funny

      I've advocated this before. In print, even.

      Unfortunately, nobody takes the idea of capital punishment for spammers seriously. But given this information, it should be possible to track these guys down and execute them like the scum they are.

      --
      Haec merda tauri est. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
    6. Re:Yeah! We're #1! We're #1! by mwood · · Score: 1

      Why don't you just call your UDP against the spammers? Oh, that's hard to do? Guess why we've not yet got rid of them.

    7. Re:Yeah! We're #1! We're #1! by GreyPoopon · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately, nobody takes the idea of capital punishment for spammers seriously.

      There are worse fates than death. Instead of executing spammers (and earning the ire of the international community), we should send them to an "old-fashioned" prison that isn't like staying at a resort. Make them work at strenuous manual labor for about 5 years without any eligibility for parole, and I seriously doubt they will go back to spamming after they get out. You don't need Bubba and you don't need death sentences. You just need hard, decisive and quickly executed justice.

      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    8. Re:Yeah! We're #1! We're #1! by 1u3hr · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      Unfortunately, nobody takes the idea of capital punishment for spammers seriously. But given this information, it should be possible to track these guys down and execute them like the scum they are.

      It's been done.
      Here's the Americans on The ROKSO list.

      Unfortunately Slashcode won't let me put them in a list ("lines have too few characters").

      The above has links with addresses for many of these. Was it Rumsfeld who said "one spammer, one bullet"? A dozen magazines should do this lot then.

      Alan Ralsky, Albert Ahdoot and Alyx Sachs, Amadeo Belmonte, America Find Inc., Andrew Amend, Angelo Tirico, Anthony ''Tony'' M. Banks, Bill Stanley, Bill Waggoner, Bonnie Dukarossa - Bullet9 Communications, Brendan Battles, Brian David Westby, Brian Farrow, Brian Haberstroh, Brian Kramer, Briceco, Inc., Bubba Catts, Calvin Ho, Charles F. Childs, Chris Brown, Chris Smith, CPU Guys, Creaghan A. Harry, Current Mail, Cyrunner, Damon DeCrescenzo - Docdrugs, Dan and Rosalee Young, Dan Padgham, Dana Jones - The Ballman, Daniel Ivans, Daniel Khoshnood, Daniel Lin, Dave Patton, David Lambert, Davis Wolfgang Hawke, DM GROUP, Drew Auman, ebusinessroad.com, Eddie Davidson, Eddy Marin, Eduardo de Souza, Elegance Network, Elmed, Email Experts, Erb Avore, Eric Reinertsen, EvoClix, Franpro, FutureVision Communication, G-Force Marketing, Gaven Stubberfield, George Kokinos, George Rand, Giantweb, Glen and Stacey McCausland, Glen Hannifin, Gordon Lantz & Gretchen Aitken, Greg Nowakowski + Chris Tibaldo, hispeedmedia.com, Howard Minsky, IMG Direct, Ion Entertainment, Jace Groves, Jack Ford, James Borzilleri, Jason Vale, Jeffrey Peters, Jody Smith, John Cota, John Grandinetti, John Hites - ''Steve Sorenson'', John Molino, Jon Thau, Jonathan Beyer, Jonathan Cosie, Joshua Baer, Kazz Asher, Kelly Joe Ellis, Laura A. Betterly, Lloyd Lapidus, lmihosting.com, Magnum Enterprises, MailTrain, Max Sutter, Melle Brothers, Michael Krause, Michael Lindsay, Michael Tiezzi, Million Marketing, Minh Nuyen, Monsterhut, Mort Schneider, Neil Goodson aka 'Robert Zimmerman', Neomill, NetFree, Inc., netleads.ws, NetSetGo, omegalead.com, Patrick Brady, Patrick English, Paul Boes, Paul Mentes, Penn Media, Peter Decaro, Phil Doroff, Philip Adelberg, Phillip Von Haak, Quang Dangtran - Whoa Medical, radisp.net, ResponseBase, Richard Burke, Richard Colbert - y2kisp.com, Richard Shockley, Robert Soloway, Robert Todino, Ron Millette, Ronnie Scelson, Rossman & Cole, Rusty Campbell, Rusty Ferguson, Ryan Champion, Ryan Pitylak, Sajemarketing.com, Sam & Adam Meltzer, Sam Al - Bulk ISP Corp, Sam Roland, Samson Distributing Inc. (SDI) Daniel Amato, Scott Hirsch, Scott Richter, Scott Richter, Shay Tyler, Simon Chan, Stargate2000, Target Internet Services, Thomas Cowles - Empire Towers, Thomas Gallman - telysis.net, Tom Tsilionis, trafficfiend.com, Tristram Snyder, Vincent Kwiatkowski, VP-RX, William Fuller AKA "Mr Bill", World Reach.

    9. Re:Yeah! We're #1! We're #1! by SmasKenS · · Score: 1

      There are worse fates than death. Instead of executing spammers ...

      Well, I don't care what is done to them, as long as they stop sending spam.

      Make them work at strenuous manual labor for about 5 years ...

      You mean something like manualy detecting and deleting spam?

      --
      -- - e.m.p.t.y - --
    10. Re:Yeah! We're #1! We're #1! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I want to administer the death penalty to spammers. Please?

      At 120 emails/day, its a freaking chore to clean it out. I keep my gmail ultra-secret, but my bogged down one was used for important stuff before it became a spam-packed mess.


      I'm always amused at the number of people on slashdot who will argue passionately for free speech, then argue passionately against spam.

      In other words, you want others to have full and unfettered freedom of speech, until they use it in a way that annoys you, in which case you want to kill them?

      I hate some of the TV commericals I see: they're very annoying. I have as yet to contemplate murdering anyone over it, though.

      *shrug*
      --
      AC

  2. Crush by Davak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    a very limited set of IPs with high-bandwidth connections is dishing out the bulk of the spam

    Crush those sites. Turn them off. Then repeat the study.

    We should treat spam like a disease... and perform meaningful research on it.

    Davak

    1. Re:Crush by wwest4 · · Score: 5, Funny

      > Crush those sites. Turn them off. Then repeat the study.

      ...this will be the sixth time we have destroyed them, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it.

    2. Re:Crush by halowolf · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Well its obvious what the rest of the world should do! We should add the entire American IP address range to the great blacklist and move along! :)

      Its not like other countries havn't been blockaded...

    3. Re:Crush by Rumagent · · Score: 1

      We should treat spam like a disease... and eradicate it for the good of mankind.

    4. Re:Crush by mattjb0010 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Meaningful infectious disease research needs to take into account people who do transmit the disease a lot. Besides which, most of the spam coming from China and Korea does originate in the US -- either relayed through trojan boxes or properly owned boxes, but definitely advertising US "products" in US English. Looking at the last known good header IP address doesn't tell you a lot about the true origin these days.

    5. Re:Crush by lunatik42 · · Score: 1

      There's your problem... I saw a guy who was sending out massive amounts of spam on the news. He lived in this little trailer in the woods (not even kidding) and every bit of free space was taken up by a computer or some cables. He said that anti-spam was not only infringing on his free speech, but it was ruining what he thought was *an honest way to make a living.* So, if he's invoking the First Amendment on us, there's not much we can do - unless this falls under the Patriot Act somehow.

    6. Re:Crush by mattjb0010 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The First Amendment only gives limited protection to commercial speech, and 550's are not limiting speech, there's also the right not to listen. Besides which, there is no First Ammendment where my servers are located :)

    7. Re:Crush by geminidomino · · Score: 5, Informative

      AOL v. Cyberpromotions established that servers are private property.

      Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept., 397 U.S. 728 established that forcing advertising upon unwilling recipients is NOT protected speech.

      Spammers can *invoke* the first amendment all they like. (HINT: They also claim they are legitimate, ethical buisnesses). Rule #1: Spammers lie.

    8. Re:Crush by xanadu-xtroot.com · · Score: 1

      The First Amendment only gives limited protection to commercial speech

      And if it's a commercially licensed business, what then? Then somehow SPAM is protected under your interpretation of the First Amendment?

      Geesh. That would make Howard Stern even more right in his logic than yours (of whom I'm a listener).

      --
      I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
      I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
    9. Re:Crush by mattjb0010 · · Score: 1

      And if it's a commercially licensed business, what then? Then somehow SPAM is protected under your interpretation of the First Amendment?

      Like I said, they have limited rights to free speech, ending at your private property, that's not my opinion it's the opinion of the US Supreme Court. Therefore spam is not protected.

    10. Re:Crush by TykeClone · · Score: 2, Insightful
      One Time DISC0UNT 0RDER for V1@GRA, Via*gra*

      That's certainly US English :)

      The most effective thing to do is to come down hard on the businesses using SPAM to advertise.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    11. Re:Crush by xanadu-xtroot.com · · Score: 1

      OK, point made.

      I was trying to figure out where you were going with it.

      --
      I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
      I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
    12. Re:Crush by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Crush those sites? A sound idea. Start here. It's a Spam Vampire site set up by one of the more vicious anti-spammers I've ever seen in action. Non-caching, image-reaping, website-burning, bandwith-sucking action, all with a scorecard and a throttle. Now if we can just get this modded up so that a few thousand people are all playing at the same time...

    13. Re:Crush by mwood · · Score: 1

      For some reason this reminded me of a good Mark Twain quote: "Giving up smoking is the easiest thing in the world. I should know, for I have done it a thousand times."

    14. Re:Crush by GreyPoopon · · Score: 4, Informative
      We should add the entire American IP address range to the great blacklist and move along! :)

      I know your comment was meant to be funny, but that's EXACTLY what I think other countries should do. They should contact the US government and tell them they have 30 days to fix the spam problem before a nationwide block goes into place. I predict the end to most of the spam within 5 to 10 days. I'm an American, BTW, and I don't think my country should be treated with any more consideration than some of the Asian countries we've advocated taking this approach with.

      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    15. Re:Crush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey it no worky in Opera.

    16. Re:Crush by lahi · · Score: 1

      Right. Do the world a huge favor and shut down Pfizer. Immediately.

      -Lasse

    17. Re:Crush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, this fails in non-IE browsers.

      (=useless)

    18. Re:Crush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He sounds like he's very good at quitting, having done it so much.

    19. Re:Crush by RussDavisDotCom · · Score: 1

      I'm sitting one hop off of an OC-12. Muhahahhahaa...

      --
      My favorite phrase: You have 5 Moderator Points! Use 'em or lose 'em!
    20. Re:Crush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LMAO at the big W3C validator link in the lower left corner.

      Sure it validates, but IT DOESN'T WORK.

      What a joke.

    21. Re:Crush by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 1


      It doesn't work under Firefox, either. I completely forgot to mention that. If it weren't for that site I'd never use IE at all...

    22. Re:Crush by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 1


      The evil chortle seems to have paid off there. I've *never* seen that page drop dead like that! What kind of speed were you getting?

    23. Re:Crush by (54)T-Dub · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not a nationalist or anything. But the rest of the world's economy would take a severe hit if they were cut of from America even in limited fashion like email.

      --

      "I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
    24. Re:Crush by gregmac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They should contact the US government and tell them they have 30 days to fix the spam problem before a nationwide block goes into place.

      and what are the chance that Bush would take this as a terroist threat and use it as an excuse to go and bomb the shit out of the country that said it?

      --
      Speak before you think
    25. Re:Crush by pqdave · · Score: 1

      Asia gets blocked by some providers not because of the amount of spam, it's because of the proportion of spam to useful mail. I don't know anyone in Asia, so unfortunalty it makes sense for me to use a provider that blocks them.

      The other problem is that we don't really have laws that give the government the power to just shut off the top spammers, and I don't know if I want them to have that power--Their list is too likely to include sites like http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhima nyway.com/ , based on the same investigative techniques that gave us the compelling evedence of Iraqi WMD.

    26. Re:Crush by GreyPoopon · · Score: 3, Insightful
      But the rest of the world's economy would take a severe hit if they were cut of from America even in limited fashion like email.

      Yes, most likely, but since the impact to the American economy would be similar, it's unlikely that the US would let that happen. Somebody ought to do a comparison analysis between the impact of loss of connectivity and the impact that fighting spam has right now. A few days of lost connectivity may very well be worth the cost savings to companies that have to spend money on dealing with spam.

      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    27. Re:Crush by GreyPoopon · · Score: 2, Insightful
      what are the chance that Bush would take this as a terroist threat and use it as an excuse to go and bomb the shit out of the country that said it?

      None. Don't be silly. Although I can guarantee you that the reaction in the US would depend highly on which country makes the threat. If it was the EU, Bush would probably make lots of noise and then bow and scrape. If Iran makes a similar threat, Bush will say "go ahead" and then later try harder to get them slapped with economic sanctions over their nuclear policies....

      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    28. Re:Crush by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      What the hell are you linking us to?

      Sure, the bargraph site icon is lovely, but all I get is a couple tables, a big blank blue background, a W3C verification link, a field labelled "Speed" and a checkbox labelled "reload images." There's no documentation, no "what the hell is a spam vampire site?" no image, contrary to the checkbox's assertion...

      What the hell is this? Maybe a "help" link or a "why doesn't this site do jack shit?" link would help a bit, eh?

      Thanks for wasting my time, I guess.

    29. Re:Crush by RussDavisDotCom · · Score: 2, Funny

      not as much as you would think... just distributed over several machines. 150k x 10 windows and I'm sucking 1.5MB off of their bandwith a second. Take that, put it on 30 or so machines... then you're cooking with gas.

      --
      My favorite phrase: You have 5 Moderator Points! Use 'em or lose 'em!
    30. Re:Crush by yintercept · · Score: 2, Insightful
      it's because of the proportion of spam to useful mail. I don't know anyone in Asia, so unfortunalty it makes sense for me to use a provider that blocks them.

      This is true for all nationalities. There is an extremely low ratio of real mail to spam for all email traffic that travels across borders...because most people really don't know a lot of people across borders. Hence the argument that other countries should shut off the US is as sound as for US ISPs shutting off Asia.

    31. Re:Crush by Jesus_666 · · Score: 3, Funny

      It doesn't work under Firefox, either. I completely forgot to mention that. If it weren't for that site I'd never use IE at all...

      Now you can use IE to hurt spammers... Oh, the irony!

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    32. Re:Crush by just+fiddling+around · · Score: 2, Informative

      Looks like this thing takes the adresses of the included images in spam emails and makes you reload them a lot.

      Give those spammers a slashdotting!!!

      --
      You're not old until regret takes the place of your dreams.
    33. Re:Crush by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 4, Informative

      > What the hell are you linking us to?

      It's a "Lad Vampire" site. Some anonymous person coded the first one and used it to attack fake banks created online by 419 scammers and escrow cheats. "Artists Against 419" are still running one and organize flashmobs every once in a while to get hundreds of people using them all at once. The page links to just the images on spamvertised websites and reloads them over and over without caching, which sends the hosting costs of the server through the roof. Before long the site gets shut down for good and the spammer owes for some serious bandwidth costs. In cases where the sites are being served by zombied cable boxes then the ISP at least gets alerted to the problem and closes the user 'til their box is disinfected. The speed option allows you to change the reload speed depending on your bandwith. (Admins with access to fat pipes always get a grin out of opening it up all the way.)

      > Thanks for wasting my time, I guess.

      No problem. You seem like someone who doesn't feel complete without something to be angry about.

    34. Re:Crush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Appears to be working in Konqueror... I think.

    35. Re:Crush by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 1

      In addition to all the other things I forgot to mention in my original post, include the Unsolicited Commando project. It's a little java program that quietly sends bogus data to spamvertised sites that require you to fill out personal info to get mortgage refinance and whatnot. Source code is available for those who want to see how it works.

    36. Re:Crush by Luscious868 · · Score: 0
      and what are the chance that Bush would take this as a terroist threat and use it as an excuse to go and bomb the shit out of the country that said it?

      Jesus Tap Dancing Christ. You liberals never cease to amaze me.

    37. Re:Crush by HFXPro · · Score: 1

      Well first off, I don't know if I would call what I get in my mailboxes US English. Anti spam filter perhaps. Secondly, if your audiance is world wide, you would want to use English. The internet is primarily an English speaking place. It is true that you have some sites written in the local dialect. However, most sites will feature some English page because it is so universal. You can go almost anywhere and speak to people in English and have a pretty good chance of being understood.

      --
      Reserved Word.
    38. Re:Crush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the explanation.

    39. Re:Crush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3:1

    40. Re:Crush by KjetilK · · Score: 1
      Not really. I'm Norwegian, but I communicate with people from other nations on a daily basis, and I don't think there is any country I would block as it is now.

      But then, Norway is probably special, we're a very small country that appreciates the big world on the outside. We haven't got a domestic spam problem, and there is little spam coming out of Norway.

      However, if the US could clean up their mess, then I might start advocating country-blocks, which should effectively remedy the "just move offshore" problem.

      --
      Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
    41. Re:Crush by DroopyStonx · · Score: 1

      Sounds good on paper, but in reality probably wouldn't turn out so well.

      If you block american IPs, you block sales. With the amount of sales that could be made in a day, I do believe those people would rather stomach the spam than to put a dent in their income.

      --
      We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
    42. Re: Crush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you members of the republinazi party never cease to amaze decent people.

    43. Re:Crush by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's great, but it doesn't show any images... just a blue background.

      Thanks for at least explaining what the hell it is, but that doesn't really make it so I can use the site anyway, considering the site doesn't work...

    44. Re:Crush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cutting off the tenticles of a hydra doesn't kill the hydra, and the network topology is very similar. You underestimate the technical and business prowess of those who spam.

      If you want to stop spam place stiff penalties on those buying stuff in spam, and those selling stuff in spam, make it unprofitable to conduct business, that's the only way.

    45. Re:Crush by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 2, Informative


      What browser are you running? At this point the vampire pages only seem to work in IE and (maybe) Konqueror. Are you getting a blue background and that's it, or blue with the (x) marks for the broken images?

    46. Re:Crush by jrumney · · Score: 1
      If you block american IPs, you block sales.

      How many Americans buy stuff from overseas over the internet? Maybe a few geeks buying anime from Japan, the odd expat buying stuff from home, but I'd hazard a guess that the numbers are much greater in the other direction - foriegners buying DVDs, books etc from the US because the prices are lower and the selection better (at least when compared with Europe and Australasia).

    47. Re:Crush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But the rest of the world's economy would take a severe hit if they were cut of from America even in limited fashion like email.

      Actually its the opposite. There are tons of third world countries where > 90% of people do and can live without email access and won't bother if their emails do not reach the almightly US. Afetr all, they can still send emails in the non-US part of the world.

    48. Re: Crush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah ... liberals ... people of "tolerance".

      By that logic, its intolerant to call the nazis as "nazis", or in general, racists as "racists".

    49. Re:Crush by Doctor+O · · Score: 1

      It simply won't happen. If we had business partners in the US (I'm in Germany) and our ISP blacklisted them because of this, I am sure my boss will sue them for compensation the same day unless they enable us to talk to our clients (= source of money) again. I know I would if I were the boss, and I'm sure every company depending on those network connections will do so. I hate spam like every other slashbot, but I'd hate going bankrupt by losing clients like this even more.

      --
      Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?
    50. Re:Crush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      F**k me, most of the spam comes from the USA? F**K ME, thats news to the world!!!

    51. Re:Crush by halowolf · · Score: 1
      I know your comment was meant to be funny, but that's EXACTLY what I think other countries should do.

      Oh yes it was meant to be funny, but i also wanted to use it to illicit thought on just what the impact is to blocking countries because of SPAM. The US is a big problem when it comes to SPAM and suffering some of the consequences that somes of its ISPs have advicated for other countries might just put the real problem into the proper perspective.

    52. Re:Crush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Right. Do the world a huge favor and shut down Pfizer. Immediately."

      Actually Pfizer is suing many of these spammers for mis-using its product name and supplying fake viagra, etc.

      You should be cheering them on.

    53. Re: Crush by msim · · Score: 1

      bah, i'm not american and i think your both a buncha fuckwits politics wise :P.

      actually i hope that things plug in the right direction, i.e. this time the florida election ain't rigged!!!!

      --

      Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when your gonna get food poisoning.
    54. Re:Crush by JuggleGeek · · Score: 1
      if he's invoking the First Amendment on us, there's not much we can do

      You obviously don't understand the first amendment.

      Spammers claim that their spew is "free speech", but it isn't. They also claim that they are running honest businesses, but they are not. And that they run "opt in" lists when they don't. And all kinds of things.

      Rule #1, Spammer Lie.

      Instead of trusting the spammers, lets see what the courts have said, shall we?

      U.S. Federal Judge Stanley Sporkin:

      [Spammers] have come to court not because their freedom of speech is threatened but because their profits are; to dress up their complaints in First Amendment garb demeans the principles for which the First Amendment stands.

      Chief Justice Berger, U.S. Supreme Court:

      Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit. We categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another. If this prohibition operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no one has a right to press even ?good? ideas on an unwilling recipient. The asserted right of a mailer, we repeat, stops at the outer boundary of every person?s domain.

    55. Re:Crush by mojine · · Score: 1

      FYI: illicit (adj.) Not sanctioned by custom or law; unlawful.-------- elicit (v.) To call forth, draw out, or provoke (a reaction, for example)

      --
      "It's not how many people I've killed - it's how I get along with the ones that are still alive."
  3. Limited set of IP's? by tpwch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Great, give me a list and I'll block them on my mail server.

    --
    Posted by a Debian GNU/Linux user
    1. Re:Limited set of IP's? by Zapman · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ciphertrust is an anti-spam company. They'll sell less of their product if they give away that info.

      That said, we use their Ironmail product at work, and it is AWESOME. We're blocking 200k spams a week for under 2000 mailboxes. It also wraps anti-virus (from sophos), and OWA proxy, imap, pop3, content filtering, etc. It's a wonderful appliance, that's unix based, and it's even got a really nice web front end.

      If you do anti-spam for part of your paycheck, it's a product worth considering.

      --
      Zapman
    2. Re:Limited set of IP's? by tokennrg · · Score: 5, Informative

      Spamhaus will certainly help you out with a list of IP's to block. They'll also tell you what country spams the most and what ISP a majority of the spam comes from, just check the stats at the bottom of the homepage. Spamhaus is also one of the few DNS Blacklists around that you can actually work with.

      Normally they list IP addresses that spam comes from , unlike some lists like the five-ten group that lists all but 1 IP address (127.0.0.1). Spamhaus will also remove IP's that no longer spew spam and so legitimate businesses don't get blocked erroneously.

      Spamhaus also has a nifty thing called The ROKSO List which lists know repeat offenders and spam gangs so ISP's can keep from signing them up for service in the first place.

    3. Re:Limited set of IP's? by Tripster · · Score: 1

      I agree, Spamhaus is a great RBL group who take measures to not falsely list anyone or cause too much collateral damage.

      SPEWS on the other hand, those guys are pricks, one of my servers was recently listed because I happened to have a client who apparently works some with spammers, he has been a client for 2 years with me and has caused no issues, suddenly I find my NOC unplugging me because of this even though no spam originated from my servers.

      Sorry, but I cannot be expected to do detective work and figure out what my clients are doing elsewhere outside of my services. SPEWS can suck my balls.

    4. Re:Limited set of IP's? by tokennrg · · Score: 1

      SPEWS is a pretty good blocklist but yeah they do tend to become draconian at times. If you ever peruse the NANABL Newsgroup you'll see that given the right information with all the i's dotted and the t's crossed they'll respond favorably. There are lots of claims that the posters are not SPEWS but you tend to pickup on things for some.

      I agree it can be difficult to police your clients but with a fairly responsive abuse desk this can be minimized.

      I hate spam as much as the next guy, don't get me wrong. And causing some trouble for ISP's to force them to remove spammers is called for at times and in the end does prove to be somewhat successful.

      It's not a great system but slowly things are improving and spammers are being whittled down to only a hardcore few.

      --Just opinions of my own, grain of salt, mileage my vary, etc...

    5. Re:Limited set of IP's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of the hard-core asshat spammers send from their own servers anymore. They send from a million virus-infected open proxy broadband machines. You have to hit them where they live, not just where they spew from. If somebody on your network is "working some" with spammers, they need to be booted, or the network needs to be blocked.

      SPEWS ain't the problem - spammers and those who directly or indirectly help them are the problem.

    6. Re:Limited set of IP's? by Pete · · Score: 1

      Just out of interest, what did you do? Did your NOC (whatever that is, I'm guessing your source of network connectivity) plug you back in a few hours later? Or are you still offline?

      If the latter, I'm sort of impressed/scared at your willingness to remain offline (or change providers) rather than drop a single client (especially given you seem to be ready to accept that this client is a spammer, albeit not through your network). But I guess if he's been a no-problem client for two years, you'd probably find it a bit difficult to just kick him.

    7. Re:Limited set of IP's? by JuggleGeek · · Score: 1
      SPEWS on the other hand, those guys are pricks, one of my servers was recently listed because I happened to have a client who apparently works some with spammers, he has been a client for 2 years with me and has caused no issues, suddenly I find my NOC unplugging me because of this even though no spam originated from my servers.

      If the spam "originated" from windows machines that have been hacked into unwilling spambots, and your server is hosting the spamvertised website, then you damn well *should* be listed. If your client is advertising his site via spam, and you are hosting it, then you *should* be listed. Because any way you look at it, you are aiding and abbetting the spammer.

    8. Re:Limited set of IP's? by Tripster · · Score: 1

      None of the above actually, the guy has been a reseller for a couple years and this was a legit hosting deal, none of the sites hosted have ever been spam advertised.

      Kinda whacky, but all comes down to he used an email address from the domain as a registration contact for some site that was tied to spam activities.

    9. Re:Limited set of IP's? by Tripster · · Score: 1

      I was back online in 15 minutes. Basically I explained to them the situation. My client had basically used an email address from the domain I was hosting to register some domain that ended up tied to spam or something, not exactly sure how it all came to pass just suddenly we're blacklisted for nothing more than association.

      To me, I have no real right to know what my clients do outside my services, as long as they don't use my services for anything not allowed in my TOS. So, to suddenly get told one day that some client I have had for 2 years is some huge spammer, with no evidence delivered mind you except the SPEWS notice, I find this rather unfair that I must kick a good paying client whom I have actually known well for the 2 years he was with me.

      He became a client via another good client of mine, again someone who runs a legitimate online store and has never caused any problems.

      I hate spam as much as the next guy, my servers are setup with SpamAssassin and RBL checks are done to stop trojan relays, etc.

      My main beef with the NOC is this was a server going on 3 years of service, no previous problems have been reported about any of the domains that have been there in that time. When they unplugged it was wrong because a simple whois lookup would have shown the problem domain had changed nameservers and it was their caches that were waiting to catch up.

  4. Are any of us suprised? by TaintedPastry · · Score: 5, Interesting
    While I do get the few 'nigerian national' emails, most of them seem to be in pretty g00d 3ngli$h.

    What do I do find morally distrubing is that there are geeks out there making assloads of cash providing a conduit for this spam with high powered servers and keeping the senders essentially nameless.

    1. Re:Are any of us suprised? by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

      This is almost certainly because there are a few "template" 419 emails written by people with good English, then copied and used with minor modifications by thousands of other scammers.

  5. not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    a cursory scan of spambot reporting shows this is crap sampling

    1. Re:not by fcheslack · · Score: 0

      crap sampling because the employees of that company only subscribe to US based pr0n sites. To get better sampling they need to expand their horizons.

    2. Re:not by gorbachev · · Score: 5, Informative

      Spamcop reports on SENDING IP addresses.

      The study was reporting on who actually sent the spam.

      It is widely known US based spammers use open proxies, zombies, open relays and paid foreign spammers abroad to hide their tracks.

      So both studies are correct. It's just that they're reporting different things.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
  6. Made in America by TheOtherAgentM · · Score: 0

    I'd like to say I'm proud, but so far we make spam and ugly cars.

    1. Re:Made in America by Rotten168 · · Score: 0, Offtopic
  7. This isn't really news by Dan+Hayes · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Is this surprising? We've heard it before again and again after all. While certain Asian countries are a huge part of the spam problem they're not the source of it, just (often) willing accessories to Western entrapeneurs. After all as China moves towards a more free market economy then people are going to jump at the chance to make a few dollars providing this kind of service. And after all, spam is nothing if not a prime example of a free market run rampant.

    Unfortunately the Chinese aren't the only ones interesting in making a quick buck from this, or so you'd think from the vast lack of any kind of serious response from our legislators. But then again the Government is quite fond of their own kind of spam where they're pushing themselves as the "product". Quite fitting that Bush and co. are much the same as fake penis enhancing products to be honest.

    1. Re:This isn't really news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Quite fitting that Bush and co. are much the same as fake penis enhancing products to be honest.


      So it goes when you have a Bush and a Dick in the government.
  8. I'm confused by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why doesn't spam come under the same scrutiny and attempts to shut it down as P2P?

    If it is mostly as centralized as this study indicates, it should be easy.

    OK, I know the answer (nobody's precious "IP" is threatened by spam), but if there are going to be attempts to regulate the Internet, it seems like this is a far more productive place to start.

    --
    A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    1. Re:I'm confused by chickygrrl · · Score: 1

      Because the people attempting to shutdown the p2p apps are the same ones who are buying viagra, cialis, and memberships to barely-legal-incest-facial websites.

    2. Re:I'm confused by lunatik42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Spam doesn't come under the same fire as P2P because it *promotes* consumerism and the "entertainment" industry, whereas file sharing circumvents the mass market etc. completely. Ergo, most of the war on spam is fought by the people - no one on top of the dogpile wants to regulate advertising. Besides, there are anti-spam filters being sold all over the place. That's another way to capitalize on the phenomenon.

    3. Re:I'm confused by sigaar · · Score: 1

      "Why doesn't spam come under the same scrutiny and attempts to shut it down as P2P?"

      Because the guys who have the power to do this' secretaries are deleting all their spam, so they don't even know about it.

      --
      sigaar
    4. Re:I'm confused by slashname3 · · Score: 1

      The reason is because there is big money involved. In the case of P2P the powers that be believe they are loosing money because of the file swapping.

      In the case of spam the money is to be made by sending the messages out. So the powers that be will do everything in their power to make sure spam continues to be delivered.

      The most effective defense against spam is a combination of greylisting and spamassassin. Greylisting will block 98 to 99% of the spam so your system never even receives the message. The remainder will be caught by spamassassin (or close enough so you only get maybe 1 or 2 a week that gets to your inbox.)

      What they should have published in the article the list of IP addresses. We could then put those IP addresses in firewall block lists to cut them off at that point. But because there is money involved they would never publish such information.

    5. Re:I'm confused by epcraig · · Score: 1
      Well, if we consider trademarks Intellectual Property, wouldn't (for instance) Pfizer have a case regarding Viagra?

      --
      Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
    6. Re:I'm confused by pjrc · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Why doesn't spam come under the same scrutiny and attempts to shut it down as P2P?

      As a matter of US federal and state laws, there has been one (admittedly lame) federal law passed to regulate spam, following on the heels of numerous state laws. Yes, the CAN-SPAM act sucks, but it is a law on the books. Compare with p2p, where all proposed bills have died so far.

      As a matter of ISP policy, almost all ISPs have anti-spam usage policy. They regularly DO delete accounts abused by spammers. Compare with p2p, where most ISPs allow filesharing and make no attempts to block ports, cancel user accounts, and so on.

      As a matter of public awareness/debate/outrage, compare the number of articles regarding spam to p2p... both in tech circles and the mainstream press. Spam certainly is an issue receiving a lot of attention, though it's difficult to find hard numbers to compare to p2p.

      As a matter of lawsuits filed against perps, compare the lawsuits launched by AOL, Microsoft, Yahoo and others against numerous spammers to the p2p lawsuits. Ok, here the RIAA is a winner in shear volume of suits against end users.... but to says similar actions aren't being launched against spammers is just not right.

      As a matter of effort by individuals and small groups, there are LOTS of people working hard on the spam problem. On the p2p side, there's really nothing like all the individuals who's contributed to blacklists, excellent open source filters like spamassassin, and ideas for protocol improvements (SPF).

      All in all, the effort expended against spam far outweights that against p2p. Just because the ultra-high-profile Hollywood interestes are against p2p doesn't mean that p2p is somehow getting more scrutiny than spam.

      The only thing that's getting a lot more scrutiny on the p2p side is the back-door lobbying tactics. The scrutiny is well deserved and I hope it continues (will I'm not a fan of p2p apps, the unfortunate trend is to lobby for restrictions far broader than necessary). On the spam side, we just don't have a high profile group lobbying against everyone else's interests.

    7. Re:I'm confused by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      **OK, I know the answer (nobody's precious "IP" is threatened by spam),**

      that's false.

      spam is regularly used to sell products that infrenge on IP rights(trademark violations and pure high seas piracy).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    8. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On one level there's a very easy solution. Persuade Ashcroft that a certain percentage of spam is indirectly funding terrorism (as a parallel see the BPS's attempt to link counterfeit CDs with terrorism.

      The problem is that the solution will be worse than the cure. Trouble is this is a turning point, if 'something isn't done' the solution reached by politicos will be to dumb down the internet so that it only supports web and safe email.

    9. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    10. Re:I'm confused by Smallpond · · Score: 1

      Protective blocks are already happening. Many ISPs (like mine) block outgoing email and incoming http requests so that mail and websites must be on their servers. When I first got on the net, I had telnet access to the ISP servers, too. That's long gone.

      Don't work on Ashcroft, tho. Track down the spammers and report them to IRS. How many do you think are reporting taxes?

    11. Re:I'm confused by JuggleGeek · · Score: 1
      there has been one (admittedly lame) federal law passed to regulate spam

      I think you had a typo. You must have meant to write "there has been one (admittedly lame) federal law passed to legalize spam".

  9. What are those? by Quixote · · Score: 5, Interesting
    a very limited set of IPs with high-bandwidth connections is dishing out the bulk of the spam,

    I skimmed the article, but couldn't find the answer to the question that, I'm sure, is on most /.ers minds: what are those IPS???

    1. Re:What are those? by Gzip+Christ · · Score: 1
      what are those IPS???
      I hear that the biggest offender is 127.0.0.1. There is also a tremendous amount of porn to be found once you hack it. Go get 'em boys!
    2. Re:What are those? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      just try blocking 55.64.157.0/24. That's from where I get around 76% of the spam on my company's mail server.

    3. Re:What are those? by SuperQ · · Score: 1

      haha.. whois:
      OrgName: DoD Network Information Center
      NetRange: 55.0.0.0 - 55.255.255.255
      CIDR: 55.0.0.0/8

      the DoD is a spam source?

    4. Re:What are those? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Spamhaus ROKSO database lists the netblocks and other relevant information. Interesting tidbit: Scott Richter's address block is now served by T-Systems. It doesn't take small shady ISPs or anonymous DSL accounts to bring spammers online.

    5. Re:What are those? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      66.35.250.150

  10. Come on... by xenostar · · Score: 2, Funny

    I thought the spam problem has been resolved

    1. Re:Come on... by hcdejong · · Score: 1

      That's no solution, it's just a way to cope with spam.

  11. Me... Trolling? by The-Bus · · Score: 4, Informative

    Funny. My finger's not tired, I use SpamBayes. Sure, I miss out on great messages touting... "A great opportunity... New and spreading via the Internet in a very big way-It's FREE to join, and it promises a lot. Too good to be true?" ...but it makes it easier.

    --

    Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    1. Re:Me... Trolling? by mobby_6kl · · Score: 5, Funny

      >Funny. My finger's not tired

      Funny, my finger isn't tired either, but my hand is.

      Oh...maybe I should stop visiting all those sites mentioned in the emails I get.

    2. Re:Me... Trolling? by azaris · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I use SpamBayes.

      Why bother with SpamBayes, just put your fingers in your ears and go "la-la-la-la I can't see any spam so it doesn't exist la-la-la".

    3. Re:Me... Trolling? by shic · · Score: 1

      I've started using SpamPal (N.B. the Beta is much better than the stable release) and have it configured for DBSBL, "Peer to peer" (DCC) and spam-assassin style regexp matching. After a few nasty surprises with probabilistic mechanisms I don't trust the Bayesian strategy - but I've been immensely impressed by SpamPal in my current setup.

    4. Re:Me... Trolling? by The-Bus · · Score: 1

      They are right in my spam folder. I think I had one false negative since I've began running it a couple of months ago.

      --

      Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    5. Re:Me... Trolling? by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
      Funny. My finger's not tired, I use SpamBayes. Sure, I miss out on great messages touting... A great opportunity... New and spreading via the Internet in a very big way-It's FREE to join, and it promises a lot. Too good to be true? ...but it makes it easier.
      You may don't see the automatic pressing of the delete button, but you STILL pay for the disk space and bandwidth wasted by the spam, not to mention the ressources sucked by the spam filter (when I turned off my spam filter a year ago, the database had grown to 110 megabytes - whenever an e-mail came in, the machine had to plod through 110 megabytes to check whether it was a spam or not).
    6. Re:Me... Trolling? by azaris · · Score: 1

      They are right in my spam folder. I think I had one false negative since I've began running it a couple of months ago.

      Yeah, me too. Only thanks to the three RBLs I use (Spamhaus, SORBS, DSBL) the Bayesian filter only gets to handle a dozen messages a day instead of hundreds.

  12. That's BRILLIANT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    We should start sending out "fake" spam with encoded music/movies in it. RIAA and MPAA would buy some new laws to stop spam.

    1. Re:That's BRILLIANT! by e-gold · · Score: 1

      The moderator thinks "funny," and I'm sitting here thinking, "insightful!"
      JMR

      --
      Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
    2. Re:That's BRILLIANT! by canavan · · Score: 1

      With all the "cheap softz" spam that's flooding my inbox, i'd expect the BSA to finally buy effective anti-spam legislation, but they haven't because their members are the same who got themselves the exceptions in CAN-SPAM.

    3. Re:That's BRILLIANT! by Buran · · Score: 1

      I've gotten a ton more of those in the last week than in a long time... it's not just me, then?

      BTW, I get it even more dirt cheaply, and legally. I work at a university. Bwahahah.

  13. It makes me wonder... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What happens if/when the kingpins are taken down? Will the commercial anti-spam-solution market dry up?

    Who's willing to bet that companies with spam-dependant business models won't want that happening?

    (/tinfoil hat)

    Has anyone ever thought of comparing the originating IP of an email against a blacklist? I'm not talking about the server that sent the message to the recipeint. I'm thinking of further along the relaying chain.

    1. Re:It makes me wonder... by IANAAC · · Score: 1
      What happens if/when the kingpins are taken down? Will the commercial anti-spam-solution market dry up?

      There are always other markets, such as virus protection, etc. that these companies could branch out into.

      But I agree, greed will probably keep the anti-spam business going one way or another.

    2. Re:It makes me wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has anyone ever thought of comparing the originating IP of an email against a blacklist? I'm not talking about the server that sent the message to the recipeint. I'm thinking of further along the relaying chain.

      The problem with this is that the only IP you can be sure of is the one that you're talking to. The message itself can have whatever bogus IPs the spammer cares to dream up. As such, it's worthless.

    3. Re:It makes me wonder... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Perhaps mailservers should be modified to insert a "received from" field that uses the IP given by the host OS in connection diagnostics?

    4. Re:It makes me wonder... by Temposs · · Score: 1

      Alternative tinfoil hat brainstorm:

      The US Government decides to take matters into their own hands and creates an e-mail filtering - possibly firewall/anti-virus as well - service of their own. It offers tax incentives to businesses who subscribe to it, with the ultimate goal of centering internet data management to a single hub. Make sure nearly everyone in the country has this service, so spam is theoretically erradicated.

      This also gives the government a convenient spy tool. That will be highly downplayed, and it could even be promoted as part of the war on terrorism!

      Just a thought...

      --
      Knowledge is just opinion that you trust enough to act upon. -Orson Scott Card
    5. Re:It makes me wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Want to be a villain in a remote D&D game? See the parent's author's latest journal entry.

      This is, of course, a post by the parent's author. :)

  14. Nice Advertisement.. by inkdesign · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What CipherTrust REALLY means is 86% of their potential clients reside in the US.

    1. Re:Nice Advertisement.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      An article that is a stealth advertisement... ON SLASHDOT?!?!? NEVAR!!11

    2. Re:Nice Advertisement.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Because Americans are overweight and under-educated with small, flacid penises? That's what the spam in my inbox would seem to indicate...

  15. That's ok. Outsourcing is your friend. by junkymailbox · · Score: 1

    That's ok. Eventually spam will be outsourced. And we will all live happily ever after.

  16. Well, duh. by Trigun · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Everyone blames the chinese, but the ads are written in english, for american products, and targetted at americans. The Chinese are just a relay, and being blamed as spammers, when they should be blamed for not keeping their computers secure.

    And I suppose that the sanctions on software, language barrier, and lack of skilled people have nothing to do with it?

    1. Re:Well, duh. by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      not secure? maybe they're just taking the spammers' money and laughing all the way to the bank?

    2. Re:Well, duh. by mrseigen · · Score: 1

      They could turn around and then sell out the spammers to authorities for twice the going rate. Profitable!

    3. Re:Well, duh. by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      yea but they won't have too many "repeat customers" after a while.

  17. ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is the problem with them just giving us the list of IP blocks?? This is ridiculus. Are they trying to protect the internet identities of the spammers??? Come on!!

  18. Fantastic! by melonman · · Score: 0

    So I can take .cn out of my filter and replace it with .com and all my troubles will be over? Oh, wait...

    --
    Virtually serving coffee
  19. Ok by JawFunk · · Score: 1, Funny
    "The percentage of spamming IP addresses within the U.S. is in line with other surveys, but in the actual number of messages, the U.S. is responsible for the vast bulk of spam."

    Yes, well, excess is a part of the American lifestyle.

    --
    [Please sign here]
  20. Have these IPs black listed by IwannaCoke · · Score: 1

    If these IP addresses being used exclusively to pump out spam, then if/when the list is released, black list them.

    Report it to your ISP so they black list them on the mail servers. You would of course need to supply them the list via a 3rd party website site with a respectable reputation. (I.E. the researcher's site) Any ISP worth its salt isn't going to black list a bunch of IPs just because John Q. User says they should.

    1. Re:Have these IPs black listed by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      The list according to a reputable website:

      207.46.144.188 (@microsoft.com)
      216.250.128.21 (@sco.com)

      what, you don't think slashdot is reputable? wash out your mouth with soap :)

  21. SPAM thrives best where it is consumed. by erick99 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I think that SPAM does so well (so to speak) here in the United States because enough people read SPAM and buy the products to make it worthwhile for the spammers to do business. I had no idea there was such a market for "male enhancement," "payday loans," and the other similar ads.

    I have been using gmail since early July and the spam filter is the best I've used so far. I get very few spam in my inbox everyday and I haven't had a false positive in so long that I don't check anymore.

    The spammers will continue to spam until they are ingored to the point that there is no money in it. But, you know, I just don't see that happening.

    Cheers,

    Erick

    --
    http://www.busyweather.com/
    1. Re:SPAM thrives best where it is consumed. by multimed · · Score: 4, Insightful
      That's just not true at all--a very common misconception. If people just stop buying stuff from the spam, the success rates will go down low enough that spam will no longer be effective and go away, right? Hooey. The people doing the spamming and the crap for sale or whatever are two different things. Spammers don't care what the response rates are, they sell the service of bulk emails. They get paid no matter what. Of course that's not what they tell the businesses buying their services. They pitch how cheap it is to reach millions of people and the whole "if just 1% buys something" fallacy. The problem is the greed of the businesses continues to let them believe the sales pitch of the spammers. That's why legitimate companies don't do spam--not because it's immoral or illegal but because it already doesn't make financial sense.

      That's why my answer is not to go after the spammers who are slime but often out of US jurisdiction, or even the ISPs because while some of them are evil & look the other way, a lot of them are trying, but it's hard work. No don't bother with them, I think they should go after the companies selling the crap. There's a contact in most of the spam for people to actually buy the crap. And that's a hell of a lot easier than tracking the spammers, nail the businesses paying for the spam. I guess it's kinda like going after the Johns instead of the prositutes.

      --
      Vote Quimby.
    2. Re:SPAM thrives best where it is consumed. by thephotoman · · Score: 1

      You mean you haven't seen the television ads for male enhancement and paycheck advance services? There's obviously enough of a market for them to have the money to advertise on TV (and I heard an Enzyte ad on the radio the other day, too). These things just aren't for spam anymore. (Please, lowercase for spam...Hormel doesn't like it when you use their trademark to refer to mass unsolicited e-mail.)

      I've had to tell my father that he shouldn't be reading his spam, simply because he's tempted too often to purchace through it. He's even one of those tech-savy, won't-buy-anything-on-the-internet-because-he's-af raid-somebody-will-steal-our-credit-card-number types.

      --
      Haec merda tauri est. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
  22. Two Words by Rie+Beam · · Score: 1

    Proxy Server.

    1. Re:Two Words by Errtu76 · · Score: 1

      yes, because a proxy server will block spam. A proxy server on your side ... that you only use .. to connect to websites ... and not email ..

      or maybe you meant something else?

    2. Re:Two Words by Rie+Beam · · Score: 1

      Yes, as you know, technology limits proxy servers to only using port 80. We can put a man on the moon, but we can't open ports 1-79.

  23. T-Systems connects Scott Richter's net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to this, notorious spammer Scott Richter has his own netblock (69.6.0.0-69.6.79.255), which until recently was connected to the internet through Taiwan based ISP Chunghwa Telecom. After they gave up on him, Germany based T-Systems took over. If you have any problems with spam from this netblock, their security team would like to hear about it. They have announced that they will terminate the contract if Richter violates it.

    1. Re:T-Systems connects Scott Richter's net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck. If you want to actually get in contact the security team, you're much better off calling TSNA, because they know the German guys' nap and vacation schedule.

    2. Re:T-Systems connects Scott Richter's net by SpammersAreScum · · Score: 1

      Odd. I've been getting occasional spams from his netblock. But when I do traceroutes from various directions to his IPs, all routes show so-5-0.ipcolo1.Chicago1.Level3.net as their connection. Complaints to level3 have thus far produced no response. How does T-Systems figure into this? Do they own level3? Even after running the heise.de article through babelfish, I having trouble seeing an actual announcement by T-Systems; do you have a pointer to one?

    3. Re:T-Systems connects Scott Richter's net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think they made an announcement about their newly aquired customer, but (according to the Heise article) when asked about the relationship, T-Systems did not deny it and "promised" to end the contract if Richter breaks it.

      Traceroutes to 69.6.1.1 using http://www.sarangworld.com/TRACEROUTE/ show 62.154.5.245 (paix-gw12.SFO.US.net.DTAG.DE) right before the packets enter Richter's network. That is portable address space assigned to "Deutsche Telekom AG".

    4. Re:T-Systems connects Scott Richter's net by SpammersAreScum · · Score: 1

      You're right -- 69.6.1.1 does route through dtag.de. But hosts that I've actually received spam from -- 69.6.66.9, 69.6.66.10, 69.6.66.17, 69.6.66.20 -- all route through level3.net and not dtag.de. So I'm not sure T-Systems would feel obliged to act...

    5. Re:T-Systems connects Scott Richter's net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I traced www.optinrealbig.com (69.6.27.4) and it goes through T-Systems. Maybe he uses T-Systems for webhosting and Level 3 for spamming. I can't compare right now, because I don't archive spam.

    6. Re:T-Systems connects Scott Richter's net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anybody who would provide connectivity (or air) to that bag of crap deserves to have their IPs placed in blocklist ROM chips.

  24. Screw that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Great, give me a list and I'll block them on my mail server. ...give us the list and let's block the whole freakin' netblocks at the router.

    You are judged by the company you keep!

  25. I need your help by Saint+Aardvark · · Score: 5, Informative
    Weirdly enough, I just wrote about something like this in my journal. In a nutshell, I've been contacted by a list seller asking if the files on my site mean I know how to get in touch with The Bulk Club (you remember The Bulk Club, right?)

    I'm looking for suggestions on what to do next. In the meantime, whatever you do, do not run this command:

    while [ true ] ; do wget http://www.emailsupply.net/sample.txt -O /dev/null ; done
    That's a 4MB sample of the lists the gentleman has for sale, and surely the Slashdot effect runs the risk of using up all his bandwidth. Don't do it, I beg you!
    1. Re:I need your help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still has plenty of Bandwidth... need more slashdotters to 'not' grab the file.

    2. Re:I need your help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aw, shit... Meant to mount my USB HD but accidently typed that instead... Silly keys are so close to eachother these days!

      I'l ctrl+c but this whole incident left me drained. I think right now is a good time to contemplate on my mistake... After I take a few hours of napping, that is

    3. Re:I need your help by gptelemann · · Score: 5, Interesting

      while [ true ] ; do wget http://www.emailsupply.net/lists.php -O /dev/null ; done

      Try this also: large file, and hit the PHP, not a static page!

    4. Re:I need your help by Saint+Aardvark · · Score: 1
      and hit the PHP, not a static page!

      You're right! Listen to gptelemann, everyone, and DO NOT do that!

    5. Re:I need your help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That fucker has a lot of bandwidth... These are from 3 simultaneous wgets on 3 different networks:

      100%[==>] 4,624,210 1.39M/s ETA 00:00
      100%[==>] 4,624,210 362.80K/s ETA 00:00
      100%[==>] 4,624,210 443.54K/s ETA 00:00

      (results trimmed due to junk filter)

    6. Re:I need your help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are being wasteful: Use "while : ;".

      PS DO NOT Run the command! It would be incredibly naughty.

    7. Re:I need your help by Krafty+Koder · · Score: 1

      yup - i'm definitely NOT doing that at the moment....

    8. Re:I need your help by Rik+van+Riel · · Score: 1

      Funny, over 100 of the addresses on that list are spamtraps received on my home system.

      Makes me wonder how many of the email addresses on that list belong to ISPs that run really big spamtraps...

    9. Re:I need your help by Kallahar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It appears that his host is onlinehome-server.com which has a price list at here which shows their max monthly bandwidth as being between 25 and 100 gigs. At 90k/s bandwidth (their end) that's 324 megs/hour/person, so assuming 10 people do it it would take 30 hours each to hit their cap. 100 people could do it in 3.

      Sounds like fun :)

    10. Re:I need your help by strAtEdgE · · Score: 1

      Well I hear that email is "The Internet's number one used application [and] is the most cost effective marketing tool!".

      --
      ----- sXe
    11. Re:I need your help by multipartmixed · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > while [ true ]

      The square brackets are extraneous. Or rather, they give your loop the meaning you intended, but not the way you meant it.

      You are testing that the string within the brackets is not zero length. You do this by running /bin/test (which is linked from /bin/[), checking that test != "" and eating the ]. Then test returns 0 (because it's true).

      What you want is

      while true; do ... done

      This runs the program /bin/true which does nothing but return zero.

      while [ crapapples ]; do ... done

      would also loop infinitely. As would:

      while [ false ]; do ... done

      Which could really confuse things if you meant to temporarily disable the loop by writing

      while /bin/false; do ... done

      This concludes our shell lesson for the day.

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    12. Re:I need your help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow,

      Thanks for that Gem. Offtopic but a really neat little tidbit

    13. Re:I need your help by mla_anderson · · Score: 1

      Even better:

      while true; do wget -b http://www.emailsupply.net/lists.php -O /dev/null > /dev/null ; done

      This should just burn the server quickly, so please DO NOT DO THIS, it could cost the poor guy lots of money in bandwidth and lost business.

      --
      Sig is on vacation
    14. Re:I need your help by ggvaidya · · Score: 1
    15. Re:I need your help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      Yes, it wouldn't be good if people tried that, but it would be even more important not to try this or variations:
      while true; do wget --cookies=off --cache=off --user-agent='Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows 95)' -O /dev/null --random-wait --referer='http://www.ftc.gov/' http://www.emailsupply.net/sample.txt ; done
      (All on one line, in case that isn't obvious)

      This sets some useful wget options:
      1.) the user-agent string is set to look like an ordinary, common browser access. Pick one from a real browser (google for "user-agent string" to find examples). This is for an old Win 95 version of IE.

      2.) sets the referer field to some misdirection (e.g., implying you visited their site from a site or domain by clicking on a link at, oh, ftc.gov, another spammer's site with competing services, etc. Be creative, even consider setting it randomly for more fun. It's probably easy to recognize as bogus, but might be worth a "gasp" when they first look at the logs if you put in an FBI, IRS, FTC or similar site with interesting implications). Setting it to point from another page on the site also makes sense, and looks more like a normal visit.

      3.) --random wait causes wget to vary its access times to make it more difficult to detect as script-driven (see the man page for more details).

      4.) --cache=off sends the appropriate command to ask the remote server to to get the actual file, rather than a cached version (may as well get the most up-to-date version, right?). The server may not honor the request, but it doesn't hurt to ask.

      5.) --cookies=off should be obvious. No sense in giving or leaving behind any free information about the session.

      Wget is a really useful and versatile program.

      Your suggestion was a pretty bad one, yes, but, fortunately, it could have been worse.
    16. Re:I need your help by mla_anderson · · Score: 1

      It appears the host is down. You horrible people have deprived this poor innocent businessman of his income. Naughty, naughty, naughty.

      having a 10Mb pipe is fun sometimes

      --
      Sig is on vacation
    17. Re:I need your help by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      maybe I'm not fully getting this, but aren't you just getting this from your ISP's proxy or something after a few attempts, at least I noticed that the first time I tried to get this file took much longer as a second attempt.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    18. Re:I need your help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe that's what the --proxy=off option is for in wget? Use --cache=off, at least.

    19. Re:I need your help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are out of bandwidth for the month! And it is only the 13th... heh... 13th... heh... Slashdotted on a Friday... the 13th... muhahahaha

    20. Re:I need your help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's nice to see Yahoo! and Paypal doing there part to help the world be spammed! emailsupply.net uses Paypal as their payment processor under the account 'emailsupplynet@yahoo.com'.

      Thanks a lot guys!

    21. Re:I need your help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a good cause.

      I'm getting the list at 200k/s and php around 50k/s. I'm leaving for the weekend, auto-reloading every 5 seconds or so.

      My math says >100GB - how much is everyone else doing?

    22. Re:I need your help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? It's now the 14th and I'm getting all the data my 1 Mbps ADSL can take. We need this warning as an article on the front page to warn more people not to connect.

  26. Amount is only message-wise. by Tar-Palantir · · Score: 4, Informative

    According to the article, Asia has a significantly higher number of spamming machines. It's just that the US, with readily available high bandwidth connections (and nutbars like Alan Ralsky) spews out a disproportionate percentage of all actual spam messages.

    1. Re:Amount is only message-wise. by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      It has more to do with the fact that spammers are service providers, and most of the organisations which use those services are based in the US.

      Trying to blame the rest of the world for this is just evading responsibility.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  27. roots? by Errtu76 · · Score: 0

    English isn't my first language, so i was looking at the topic for some time and this is what i thought it means:

    - Spam is United State Roots
    - Spam his United State Roots
    - Spam has United State Roots

    While only the last one makes sense, i still don't understand it. Doesn't 'roots' imply the first spam ever sent originated in the US? Didn't we already knew this for about 25 years? Wasn't DEC the first to send spam (to ARPANET)?

    Maybe i understand things completely wrong here. Please feel free to correct me.

    1. Re:roots? by TaintedPastry · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      ...ooops, check 'Grammar' above

    2. Re:roots? by Gramie2 · · Score: 1

      Or the possessive:

      The U.S. roots of spam.

      (where "U.S." is used as an adjective of "roots")

    3. Re:roots? by hcdejong · · Score: 1

      What is meant is option 2: "the US roots of spam". The contraction looks odd, but it's used just like "John's boots" etc.

    4. Re:roots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      In this case, "Spam's" is a possesive, and "U.S." is a locational modifier to the noun "Roots".

      So we're referring to "The roots that spam has which are loacted in the United States".

      In the case of what it means, I'm assuming that the majority of Spam activity originates in, is intended for, and is markted towards people in the U.S. -- even though the spam might be relayed over computers in Korea or China, the spam, spam targets and spam subjects all reside and originate in the US.

    5. Re:roots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Spam's" is not a contraction. It is a possessive. "Spam's United States Roots" means "the United States Roots of Spam". And I think "roots" just means "origin" in this case.

    6. Re:roots? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      In this context the word 'roots' means where it comes from or its source.

      Another way to phrase the article title could have been 'Spam has its roots in US'. Replace the word root with 'origin' and the meaning becomes more clear (hopefully).

      If you look at this definition you can see that the fifth entry uses the term 'primary source'. In this case the primary source of spam is the US.

      Hope this helps.

      P.S. Considering English is not your first language you write much better than a large percentage of people on this board who were born in the US.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    7. Re:roots? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      Are the mods on crack today? How in the hell is what I wrote off topic? It completely answered the posters question.

      Sheesh. Must that Friday the 13th nonsense kicking in.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    8. Re:roots? by PriceIke · · Score: 1

      Or the prepositional:

      The United States roots for spam.

      --
      It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
  28. The people who spam are the disease by benzapp · · Score: 0

    To purify our people, they should be eliminated.

    Perhaps spammers would be less willing to spam if they realized they could be executed.

    --
    I don't read or respond to AC posts
  29. iptables -I FORWARD -s isp/20 -j DROP by caluml · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Give us the CIDR blocks of the whole ISP that the spammer is using. Block all packets from those ISPs. Once ISPs learn that they get blocked for tolerating spam, they will try harder to prevent them.

    1. Re:iptables -I FORWARD -s isp/20 -j DROP by mattjb0010 · · Score: 1

      Give us the CIDR blocks of the whole ISP that the spammer is using

      Look here

    2. Re:iptables -I FORWARD -s isp/20 -j DROP by bwindle2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I wrote a little script that parses my mail filter's logs, and anyone who is rejected by a DNSBL but keeps trying gets dropped into my boarder router's ACL. These hit counts were reset yesterday afternoon. Some of the worst ones:

      deny tcp 64.156.187.0 0.0.0.255 any eq smtp (2551 matches)
      deny tcp 206.71.48.0 0.0.15.255 any eq smtp (5914 matches)
      deny tcp 66.109.16.0 0.0.15.255 any eq smtp (9594 matches)

    3. Re:iptables -I FORWARD -s isp/20 -j DROP by Skapare · · Score: 1

      If you just block MCI/UUNET, you'll probably have half the spam licked right there. You can get the list or find a DNSBL from blackholes.us.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    4. Re:iptables -I FORWARD -s isp/20 -j DROP by misleb · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm sure [spammer ISP] is really worried about a few Slashdot readers blocking their netblock at their Linux workstation. And if anyone is using Linux/iptables as a major network router, they are probably not worth communicating with anyway. ;-)

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    5. Re:iptables -I FORWARD -s isp/20 -j DROP by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      You want to block the Internet????

    6. Re:iptables -I FORWARD -s isp/20 -j DROP by Uggy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, shhhh, I'm not worth communicating with. No, I'm a worm... little ol' me. I'm tiny, no meat on my bones. Look at that? All skin. I'm not worth your trouble. Yeah, that's it, move along, nothing to see here.

      One could only hope.

      --
      Toddlers are the stormtroopers of the Lord of Entropy.
    7. Re:iptables -I FORWARD -s isp/20 -j DROP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you give some more information on this script you wrote? I have a Cisco router that doesn't block anything spam related, and as a result I get about 10-20 spam a day on the administrator/postmaster account for my domain. I don't have many email addresses on the server, so I don't get any other spam at all. But having access to a useful script like this would be great.

      Thanks.

  30. Spam won't stop until Orlando Soto can't get onlin by insomnyuk · · Score: 1

    There will probably always be spammers, but the reason it is at all profitable is because of people like Orlando Soto, who just love reading spam and buying great awesome products like 'The only solution to Penis Enlargement.'

    I cannot imagine why people like him love to buy product advertised by spam, but if spammers get even a 1% response rate from 1,000,000 emails in a month, thats 10,000 sales.

    Filter away all you want, but you will be hacking at the branches rather than the root (sorry forthe obvious pun)

  31. Awful colour scheme. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  32. other languages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    During my 10 years on the internet I have only recieved non-english spam once. I think this is because it just wouldnt be cost-effective sending spam in Swedish, my mother tounge with only 9 million speakers, because only a small fraction of the recepients will actually buy something, and this fraction would be too small if the target population was Swedish.

  33. Obvious by sigaar · · Score: 1

    I could have told you this just by looking at the time when the spam starts rolling in - the start day in the U.S. east coast.

    I'm in GMT+2 zone, all day is quiet, until around late afternoon when the U.S. day starts. Then all the spam starts rolling in. Same goes for virus mails.

    --
    sigaar
  34. Grammar by TaintedPastry · · Score: 1
    I think it is supposed to be taken as the Roots that belong to Spam are U.S.

    It's a possesive like Jim's Car.

    It is niether Jim is Car, or Jim has car

    It could just as easily be refering to Jim's US Roots.

  35. Re:^^ Unhealthy obsession? Yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given how much the previous guy gets blamed by the current group, and how abso-fucking-lutely no one of the current group takes responsiblity for any goddamn thing [1], why not?

    [1] I suppose if things weren't racing down the toilet (to mix metaphors), they just might. But that is another point......

  36. Re:roots? robots? by mikael · · Score: 1

    I thought the title read "Spam has United States Robots".

    Are the machines trying to overthrow the humans by burdening them with useless information?

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  37. From the US? by bannerman · · Score: 2, Informative

    I could have sworn I just saw a slashdot article stating that 80% of all spam came from some country like Elbonia or something. does anyone else remember that? Maybe someone with the skills to find it?

    --
    I keep forgetting my place. Jesus is for losers. Why do I still play to the crowd?
    1. Re:From the US? by Saluton_Mondo · · Score: 3, Informative


      This might be what you're after: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/20/165 0255&tid=111

      According to this /. article 71% of spam servers are located in China

      --

      Batman: "Slake your thirst. You'll have worse than a parched sensation when we're through with you!"
    2. Re:From the US? by krgallagher · · Score: 1
      "I could have sworn I just saw a slashdot article stating that 80% of all spam came from some country like Elbonia or something."

      I think the difference here is one of volume. While the largest number of servers are located outside the US, this article is saying that US servers still provide the bulk of the actual emails sent. Think of it this way:
      1,000 non-US servers sending 3 emails a day VS. 3 US servers sending 3,000 emails each a day.

      This is always the problem with statistics, they can be made to prove a point depending on how and which number you actually report. There is still one othe number left out of the calculations - To how many recipients are each of the emails sent?

      --

      Insert Generic Sig Here:

  38. Oh goody! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Something else the world can blame on Americans. So now we are all fat, lazy, arrogant, war wongering spammers!

    F'eh

    1. Re:Oh goody! by stanley_caiww · · Score: 1

      The mails are made by Americans, but are sent from Asia. Smart Americans!!

    2. Re:Oh goody! by cheekyboy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Dont forget to add small dicks too.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    3. Re:Oh goody! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which one of those isn't true?

  39. 95% of my spam originates from asia by m2bord · · Score: 0

    i know what this study is saying and it makes sense to me.

    what i think is happening is that certain spammers who have access to asian servers are targetting my accounts and i got undetected by the bulk of other spammers.

    perhaps my spammer doesn't want to relinquish or share his list with anyone.

    and if that's true...i hope he doesn't start thinking about selling or leasing it.

    --
    Is it 5:30 yet?
  40. Anonymous & cowardly reporting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the worst article and reporting. Not a single bit of factual data about the study. NOT ONE US ISP LISTED IN THE ARTICLE? WTF! If you are going to make big accusations, list the ISP's that and a break down of where you got the spam from.

    Looooosers wrote this dumb article. I'd say infoweek is responsible for 80% of the slashdot spam today.
    --jcarr

  41. Makes sense by Sarojin · · Score: 1, Informative

    Given the relative popularity of Windows here. According to The Register 80% of spam also comes from infected Windows PCs!

    --
    HOW'S MY POSTING? CALL 1-800-POSTING
  42. cybersmtp.com by samsmithnz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just yesterday I received spam from this guy at cybersmtp.com, advertising they can send bulk emails out. Check this out, I was surprised at the number of emails they have in their database, and the relative cheapness to send out nearly 300 million emails:

    No Software to Buy - Nothing to download

    Lowest cost for broadcast

    E-Mail is a key component in maintaining contact with your customers

    Email Broadcasting

    Please choose from the following:
    [ ] 1,000,000 e~mail sent $400
    [ ] 5,000,000 e~mail sent $1,500
    [ ] 10,000,000 e~mail sent $2,000.00
    [ ] 56-70,000,000 e~mail sent $2,500.00
    [ ] 224-280,000,000 e~mail sent $10,000.00


    We use our own directory, so you do not need to pay one dime extra.

    1. Re:cybersmtp.com by DMNT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They claim that they have that many e-mails.

      Rule #1: Spammers lie
      Rule #2: Spammers are stupid

      Spammers buying spamming services must be stupid enough to believe other spammers' lies.

      There have been reports of spamming attempts to newsgroup message-id's, tags, anything with @-sign in it. And how will the buyer have any way to make sure that the mail is sent to that many e-mail addresses? Or someone will actually read them? Spammers selling stuff will care about this. Spammers selling spammer services won't. They just want the easy profit. They might not even have more than a million working addresses. Maybe if someone bought the service with smaller amount of e-mail addresses will get a couple of sales and then have the courage to by "de luxe" service, which might turn to be the same as the ordinary service.

      --
      ?SYNTAX ERROR
    2. Re:cybersmtp.com by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      Just yesterday I received spam from this guy at cybersmtp.com, advertising they can send bulk emails out. Check this out...

      Okay, either the parent poster means well but didn't think through his actions, or the mods have just been successfully astroturfed by a cybersmtp.com shill.

      Congratulations--thousands of /.ers are now reading an ad for cybersmtp.com, and it's a much more targeted ad campaign than the original shotgun spam mailing. Dandy.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    3. Re:cybersmtp.com by samsmithnz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Innocent I'm afriad. I was just commenting how cheap it was to send spam, and how companies will do it for you. $10000 is nothing for a marketing campaign...

    4. Re:cybersmtp.com by powerlord · · Score: 1

      Yeah ... a friends boss felt the same way ... until he tried it.

      The companies mail server was hosed for weeks with complaint e-mails.
      Damn near ruined the company's reputation (not that it had much of one to begin with).

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    5. Re:cybersmtp.com by msim · · Score: 1

      WTF? i just downloaded that sample file to see if i have been slugged on the sample. and yep, my domain is on the list, however it's for a bogus address. Just another one to add to the pile of "email addresses i never used, and now certainly will never want to".

      Someone just get a sharp stick and gouge out his eyes please.

      --

      Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when your gonna get food poisoning.
  43. In other news by gorbachev · · Score: 4, Funny

    A study by the National Weather Service just found out sky is blue, most of the time.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
    1. Re:In other news by atcurtis · · Score: 1


      Except in England where it is only blue occasionally,

      --
      -- The universe began. Life started on a billion worlds...
      -- Except on one where stupidity was there first.
    2. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But...

      Over the whole Earth, over a year, 50% of the time is night;

      That dusk, dawn, storms, etc. do not have blue skys;

      I think it's pretty certain that NWS doesn't know what they are talking about :)

  44. Re:I believe this is the fault of George W Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, I can. Clinton was on the Daily Show last Monday and he said that it was a secret DNC plot to take over the GOP since they can't resist the enhancement and porno ads.

  45. Finally the truth by maximilln · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now we can stop all the fingerpointing at foreign nations to blame those nefarious Asians, or the socialist Europeans, or the terrorist Arabs for our spam. We can honestly stop deluding ourselves and look at the problem and say,"It really is nothing more than American business alive and well." However, I find that the analyses are always going to be flawed. If the spam passes through even one illegitimate relay along the way it's pretty safe to assume that the relay has been doctored to rewrite connections. The latest spate of spam that I've received has seemingly come from IP addresses registered to Edward's Air Force Base and the USPS. Of course, the SMTPd signatures openly acknowledge that they're "misconfigured".

    Really, until a proactive approach is taken to seriously investigate the businesses whose products are being advertised then tracking spam from the mail side is an exercise in self-delusion.

    --
    +++ATHZ 99:5:80
  46. More precise statistics are available by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CipherTrust has a breakdown of by country stats by message volume and IPs on their webpage

  47. SPAM blockers by Nuttles · · Score: 1

    I am wondering 3 things

    1. Do people actually trust their spam filters enough to delete the spam that is caught?

    2. Aren't spam filters getting very good. The main spam filter that I use is the one that hotmail has. I have gotten 1 spam message for like 4 days and the rest of the time it has caughten every single one. As for false positives. There has been two instances of this but nothing a phone call to me couldn't handle.

    3. SPAM is still an issue in this day an age because people are gullable enough to fall for it. It makes money. SPAM filters, black listing IPs, making laws against it are all ways to help but if you want a cure, a cure that will work the best, you have to focus on the user. Encourage users to become informed users. By the way I think this will solve our virus and adware program problem too. Why don't we cure the root of the problem instead of the symptoms?

    Nuttles
    Christian and proud of it

    1. Re:SPAM blockers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In regards to 1 and 2, I have my spam filter set so that I no longer get false positives, so, yes, I am confident enough in it to delete anything it catches. The downside is that I get a few false negatives a day. But I figure dealing with four or five false negatives a day is better than wading through 200 "caught" messages a day looking for false positives. (I've also learned that it helps to immediately whitelist any newsletters I sign up to. Some of them get caught otherwise even though they're legitimate.)

      As for number 3, I agree wholeheartedly. I just wish we could do more/faster.

  48. It's in the numbers... by mratitude · · Score: 1

    The article mentions zombie computers, computers hijacked by backdoor trojans and the like, but the research group seems to not diferentiate between the act of using hijacked services and spam in general.

    Had they done so, they might have noted where a lot of hijacking originates: Europe and Asia. How much spam is generated by hijacked computers and how much is generated by people using their own legitimate resources?

    For instance, you're shooting dice if you try connecting to any url that ends in cz (as just one example). These idiots are even seeding bogus keyword hits so some dupe will click their url. You'll end up with a lot of malware and other nasties coming up the wire trying to infect your machine. Hilighting where SPAM originates but paying bare lip service to the causal attributes of the problem doesn't leave me impressed.

    Perhaps it's because America bashing is more fun than impartial, thorough, research?

    --


    Mod me troll, if you must, I can't help it.
    1. Re:It's in the numbers... by maximilln · · Score: 1

      Hilighting where SPAM originates

      If you recognize the existence of hijacked or trojaned machines how can you possibly begin to track where the spam originates? Any hijacked or trojaned smtpd can easily be written to rewrite the X-originating-IP to be from an arbitrary block of predefined, or even random, IP numbers.

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
    2. Re:It's in the numbers... by mratitude · · Score: 1
      If you recognize the existence of hijacked or trojaned machines how can you possibly begin to track where the spam originates? Any hijacked or trojaned smtpd can easily be written to rewrite the X-originating-IP to be from an arbitrary block of predefined, or even random, IP numbers.
      Which just begs the questions - How can you tell where any smtp traffic truly originates? They are a research group but I didn't see any mention at all of hacked SMTP headers. This group centered on the source IP address.

      In politics, when you know the underlying specifics but gloss over those with the intent of directing people to a certain insubstantial opinion, it's appropriately called "shoving". [g]
      --


      Mod me troll, if you must, I can't help it.
    3. Re:It's in the numbers... by maximilln · · Score: 1

      How can you tell where any smtp traffic truly originates?

      That's the head of the problem. We trust that our ISPs are using smtp daemons which are accurately representing the travel path of mail which they pass on to us. Many smtp daemons have built-in mechanisms to verify the authenticity of the machine which is attempting to pass mail to them. Too many times, however, sysadmins disable these mechanisms because some fly-by-night hack sysadmin can't figure out how to properly configure his VPN. There's also the issue with the registrars. There's no doubt that many registrars were set up on a shoestring to make maximum profit with minimal staffing. If the registrar can double their profit margin by hiring college interns who can process the registration requests, but may not be all that adept at properly setting up DNS tables and MX records, they will.

      They are a research group but I didn't see any mention at all of hacked SMTP headers

      The vast majority of the public doesn't even know what an smtp header is let alone that it can be easily rewritten. It wouldn't be newsworthy because it does nothing to increase the effect of the story in the mind of the majority of the target audience. I've heard dozens of stories of office fires sparked by someone parading around an e-mail supposedly sent from someone else who, without any initiating questions, will vehemently insist the authenticity based upon the header information. Puh-leez, like they couldn't use a text editor on it before they printed it out to send it around the office? What leaves me most disdainful of my superiors is that THEY BUY INTO IT! People with 5 times my experience in years and PhDs in my field will happily trot along lemming-like without bothering to ask,"How easy is it to forge that information?" I could create a million text files with edicts from George W. Bush and Dick Cheney themselves in a night, all with proper headers and smtp routes. Heck, with a single open relay, I could send out a million e-mails which seem to come directly from the Executive himself.

      The ignorance just feeds the hamster wheel. Nothing will ever really be done about this until the government steps in and removes the profitable business interest. I hate calling for the government but, should we take the preferred route of deregulation and personal freedom, big corporations have the money and legal teams to skin us alive with their newfound freedoms long before you or I could ever realize a better life.

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
  49. Well, it's an uncomfortable topic... by Theatetus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A lot of us in the IT world owe our jobs in some way to spam: the company I work for wouldn't need a 4-person server staff if we didn't have to

    • manage spam filters and mitigate spam & virus damage for our POP clients
    • audit our mailing list clients to make sure they're not actually spamming
    • maintain our sendmail and bind clusters to prevent their use by spammers
    • etc. etc. etc.

    Would anybody else be out of a job if it weren't for spam?

    --
    All's true that is mistrusted
    1. Re:Well, it's an uncomfortable topic... by svallarian · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be a better use of your and your coworkers time if you could actually be doing something *useful* instead of just cleaning up the dung heaps of the internet?

      Steven V>

      --
      I patented screwing your mom. But it got revoked for "prior art."
    2. Re:Well, it's an uncomfortable topic... by Theatetus · · Score: 1

      That's business for you. People wouldn't pay us to do useful things, but they'll pay us to clean up messes that never should have happened in the first place.

      --
      All's true that is mistrusted
    3. Re:Well, it's an uncomfortable topic... by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      A lot of us in the IT world owe our jobs in some way to spam

      That's why the vast majority of NANAE (news.admin.net-abuse.email Usenet group) participants would rather play Whack-A-Mole by trading IP addresses to block rather than taking meaningful action. They don't want to publish the names, addresses, and phone numbers of users who spam. They want to help hide spammers citing the "privacy policies" at the ISPs where they work. They don't want to rewrite the privacy policies, AUPs, or contracts to allow the disclosure of information about spammers.

      That's why most abuse departments take days or even weeks to shut down spamvertised web sites (if they ever do). It's why you can complain about spam on a Tuesday and get another copy of the same spam on Friday advertising the same web site at the same IP address. In many cases, it's even sent from the same IP address space. It's why abuse departments "warn" spammers rather than kicking them off and turning their names over to the company attorney for legal action (like there is anyone alive today who is spamming and doesn't know that it's not acceptable).

      As long as there are people employed to deal with the spam problem, those people will have an economic incentive to make sure that the problem doesn't go away.

    4. Re:Well, it's an uncomfortable topic... by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be a better use of your and your coworkers time if you could actually be doing something *useful* instead of just cleaning up the dung heaps of the internet?

      In 99% of the cases, if the spam went away, people handling spam would be terminated. Businesses aren't looking for ways to employ people. They are looking for ways to maximize their profits. If Bob's Online Motorcyle Parts company has all of the people that they need to process orders, ship goods, track inventory, etc., then what are they going to do with two extra bodies that used to handle spam filtering? Most companies aren't wanting for people. They are wanting for customers.

  50. /etc/mail/access is your friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or equivalent, depending on what mailer you use.

    Being a US-based company that deals with only US-based clients, I took it upon myself to reject all "foreign" mail with a URL for them to check out when it bounces. Such as:

    jp 550 REJECTED - see http://blah.com/spam.txt

    If it's legitimate and the person reads the included URL, it tells them how to contact me to get them whitelisted. Since I started blocking all non-US countries, I've blocked hundreds of thousands of foreign mail. And that URL has been viewed only once, with no action taken on their behalf.

    I issue standard bounce messages with detailed instructions for them. Since 99.9999% of it is spam, I have no problems with taking such extreme measures. I have received zero complaints.

    The only time I was asked about this was when the president informed me that a current client is setting up shop in France, and asked me to "unblock" their mail. I asked him to ask them what the domain would be (blah.fr) and allowed mail from them.

    Before I was my company's email admin, the previous guy took zero steps to prevent spam. Now I bounce or reject over 75,000 a month, including automatically forwarding spamtrap spams to spam@uce.gov.

    If you don't take steps to prevent it, what right do you have to bitch about it?

  51. Trolling Nigerian Spammers by wayward · · Score: 1

    This is fairly old, but in case anyone hasn't seen it, here are some accounts of people trolling Nigerian spammers. http://sweetchillisauce.com/nigeria.html This one is probably my favorite: http://sweetchillisauce.com/ntales/CK2-1.html.

  52. How To End Spam by bratgrrl · · Score: 3, Funny

    Spam won't stop until SpamAssassin becomes SpammerAssassin.

    --

    ---

    SCO is weenies
    Gator is Spyware
    Microsoft is thugs

  53. IT-Less version of the story by EduardoFonseca · · Score: 1
  54. hello. by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 1

    could anybody tell me the IP range of the ISP's in question (that dont host any important mail servers) as i dont know any americans, and i'd like to block the range, as a trial at first, if i dont recieve any decent mail in my junk folder, i'l keep it (the filter on the IP range)

    1. Re:hello. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just ban all ISP customer network dynamic ip addresses. I have made my own RBL server and have over 28 million ips and 110675 Class C subnets blocked and still get spam everyday. If the laming haxxors would stop with the trojan software and installing it on "internet challenged" internet users.. then maybe spam would decrease to 0% since it would be too easy to block out "servers".. It not servers anymore i wish it was.. now i'm having to RBL ma and pa kettle cuz they have no clue that their computer is sending out "spam" controlled no doubt by a lame haxxor.

    2. Re:hello. by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 1

      do you have a copy of your list of IP's on a website or something?

      For anybody after starting an open source project but doesn't know what to make, how about this:

      downloading a list like this and filtering all emails (either through a pop3 > antispam > pop3 proxy or scanning ~/Mail [or whatever the path is]), then giving them the spam header.

    3. Re:hello. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use spamhaus.org as an rbl.. then daily just grep your mailserver for ip addresses that are rbld and put those in your own rbl server. Thats how i got my start .. not to mention grep your email servers out for received emails and the (host-names-of-the-spammers.aol.com) lol or whatever amazing what you can get from just your mail logs. do a host lookup on the dns name and rbl the class C of it. Its an every day job. and i do what i can every day. still fighting the battle .....

  55. Re:roots? robots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Confuse users with USR
    2. Spam users while pretending to be USR
    3. ???
    4. Profit!

  56. Is anyone surprised ? by Renaud · · Score: 1
    Ok, I live in France. The legit email I get is roughly 80% in French, 20% in English. However, here is a short sample of the daily 2000 spams I get:
    963 O Aug 13 WOW! Shocking! (0.1K) *** SPAM ALERT *** "Sex Spy provides some of the best adult entertainment on the web.
    964 O Aug 13 Jerold Gray (0.1K) *** SPAM ALERT *** No more doctors visits. - cloakroom
    969 O Aug 14 closed@blox.se (0.1K) *** SPAM ALERT *** :re cheap pharmacy prices . .viagra ,paracodin vioxx levitra ciali
    975 O Aug 14 Susan Slaughter (0.1K) *** SPAM ALERT *** The ultimate online Can.adian Gen.eric Ph.arm.acy
    980 O Aug 14 Rolex Watch (0.1K) *** SPAM ALERT *** Rolex is not for all.Is it for you - academia centenary
    936 O Aug 13 Citibank Identi (2.6K) *** PROBABLY SPAM *** Urgent Fraud Information From Citibank
    916 O Aug 13 Meg Shanel (0.1K) *** SPAM ALERT *** AD0BE PH0TOSH0P $8O; XP PR0 $5O, NORT0N 2004 $15; 0FFICE XP $100;
    917 O Aug 13 Dakota Ula (0.1K) *** SPAM ALERT *** All Popular Softwares at Deep Discouunt, Download Here program edu
    794 O Aug 13 Katherine Holma (0.1K) *** SPAM ALERT *** Whats going on . Are pre.scriptions costing you too much ??. Then
    673 O Aug 13 Willard Ewing (3.1K) *** PROBABLY SPAM *** exclusive offer doctors American directoty, 7,000 hospitals,25,
    580 O Aug 13 Bonita Clifton (0.1K) *** SPAM ALERT *** dental directory 7,000 hospitals,25,000 nursing homes and 400,000
    535 O Aug 13 Rod Thompson (0.1K) *** SPAM ALERT *** Submit your nomination forDegree
    459 O Aug 13 Bridgette Beatt (0.1K) *** SPAM ALERT *** stephens@renaudguerin.net -Even CEOs consult us.
    427 O Aug 13 Elnora Compton (1.1K) *** PROBABLY SPAM *** BYPASS YOUR CABLE BOX Get movies sports and mature channels for
    395 O Aug 13 of the The Gro (0.1K) *** SPAM ALERT *** Are You A Penny Stock Player?
    202 O Aug 13 Dennis Faulkner (0.1K) *** SPAM ALERT *** Mortgage Application, Client #38
    121 O Aug 13 Reyes Schultz (0.1K) *** SPAM ALERT *** Your order of a Degree

    Ok, so now what do you think the average layperson in Europe (or anywhere for that matter) is going to think, when you tell them the usual Slashdot party line that most of the spam comes from Asia, and those damn Korean a) can't lock up their servers b) can't be bothered to target their victims effectively and stick to people speaking their language ?

    That's right, they'll tell you that very obviously 99% of all spam is from the US. No one you'd ask would ever question that for a nanosecond.

    Not because of the English language (that could be UK, Australia, whatever...), but simply because issues such as mortgages/debt consolidation, shopping around for drugs, doctors, dentists, or a degree, even being fond of sports, is something incredibly alien to most of Europeans. I won't insult your intelligence explaining why...

    Unfortunately, you can't imagine how bad all this makes America look in the eyes of the layperson/mummy/granny/average joe in front of their AOL/Wanadoo/Hotmail/whatever email.

    For most, this is the only direct contact they get from across the atlantic, and it's from a bunch of annoying salespeople that expect the reader to be impotent, in incredible debt, or so gullible as to fall for a nigerian scam.

    Draw your own conclusions as to how this affects someone's perception of a country and its culture... Granted this may be a minor issue in the grand scheme of things, but it's still a daily annoyance coming from the US, and the dumbest people won't look further to make up their mind about americans.

    Which is a pity, but must not be underestimated.

    1. Re:Is anyone surprised ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iam in EU and i just block any email containing a $
      (dollar sign) iam not interested in anything that mentions it and it has cut down my spam by 90%
      it is amusing thogh that Americans whine about China's open relays yet all the Spam/Viruses etc all lead back to USA based companies
      i agree it shows you what kind of society (i would say culture but they dont have any) they are running over there in the "land of the free"

    2. Re:Is anyone surprised ? by coolguy81 · · Score: 1

      Not saying it isn't, but just because spam is talking about "mortgages/debt consolidation, shopping around for drugs, doctors, dentists, or a degree, even being fond of sports" doesn't mean that it came from the US. The spammers may be mainly _targeting_ people in the US bc that is where they have found they get the most respondents from.

    3. Re:Is anyone surprised ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I couldn't agree more with Renaud.

      95% of the spam I used to receive is in English for US-based debt consolidation, penis-extension, mail-order pharmaceuticals, sex sites etc.

      Who are the ISPs?
      #1 time and again = Comcast.
      Plus Verizon, RoadRunner, Charter, Shaw (Canadian), Rogers (Canadian), SBC, Level3, AT&T, MCI etc.

      These cable companies couldn't care less what their downstream broadband customers do. After all, many of them are struggling financially and employing staff to crack down on the spam from their networks costs money. Just tap in "Comcast sucks" into Google to see how bad they are at actually running a cable business, let alone tackling spam.

      As for the US image abroad. With more and more people on broadband and receiving this stuff - Yes, Comcast etc are doing more harm to the rest of the world's perception of the USA than anyone or anything else.

    4. Re:Is anyone surprised ? by Renaud · · Score: 1
      Not saying it isn't, but just because spam is talking about "mortgages/debt consolidation, shopping around for drugs, doctors, dentists, or a degree, even being fond of sports" doesn't mean that it came from the US.
      Well, from where else would you provide that kind of services to US customers? And where else would you find someone able to use the kind of consumerist phrasing you find in spam ? :)
      The spammers may be mainly _targeting_ people in the US bc that is where they have found they get the most respondents from.
      Which is even more a godsend for american bashers of all kinds...You've just stated the average american falls for spam more easily than others. The large number of US internet users may be a factor, but it can't account for the nearly 100% of spam being targeted to americans.
    5. Re:Is anyone surprised ? by EddWo · · Score: 1

      Well Said

      Now I must be going, I have an spam folder of over >1000 messages about Viagra, Cialis, Vicodin, Valium, Xanax, Phentamine, Penis Enlargements, Cheap Software, Mortgages, Loans, Pornography, Email Marketing services, Home Businesses, PHDs, MBAs, etc.

      Frankly I'm getting very fed up with it.

      --
      "Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
    6. Re:Is anyone surprised ? by TN2 · · Score: 1

      I couldn't agree more with Renaud. 95% of the spam I used to receive is in English for US-based debt consolidation, penis-extension, mail-order pharmaceuticals, sex sites etc. Who are the ISPs? #1 time and again = Comcast. Plus Verizon, RoadRunner, Charter, Shaw (Canadian), Rogers (Canadian), SBC, Level3, AT&T, MCI etc. (and see Spamhaus for their listsings). These cable companies couldn't care less what their downstream broadband customers do. After all, many of them are struggling financially and employing staff to crack down on the spam from their networks costs money. Just tap in "Comcast sucks" into Google to see how bad some of them are at actually running a cable business, let alone tackling spam. As for the US image abroad. With more and more people worldwide receiving this stuff - Yes, Comcast etc are doing more harm to the rest of the world's perception of the USA than anyone or anything else.

    7. Re:Is anyone surprised ? by TN2 · · Score: 1

      Sloppy practice by US / Canadian ISPs; opportunism by unregulated Far Eastern ISPs is part of the problem. But, the vast majority of the spam I used to receive is for American products and services, payable in USD, with (if you can spend the time tracing it back), a US bank account/mailing address at the back of it. No, they are not consciously targetting the rest of the world, but since it costs b-all to send it to the UK, France etc, they do it. Many ordinary people here in the UK who have little contact with the US save what they see on TV, are getting sick and tired of the this avalanche of spam whose origin in is in the USA.

  57. Anti-Spam Webpages? by wayward · · Score: 1

    A coworker was talking about webpages that contain a collection of large images from spammers websites. Although the basic idea is the same as the "while...wget" in Saint Aardvark's post, it's apparently quite legal since the spammers had been aggressively inviting the public to view these images. Does anyone know anything more about this?

    1. Re:Anti-Spam Webpages? by Krafty+Koder · · Score: 1

      it's this site: http://www.aa419.org/FlashMob.shtml

    2. Re:Anti-Spam Webpages? by wayward · · Score: 1

      Thanks! It looks like the main page is http://www.aa419.org/ and it looks like the page you were talking about has been changed to http://www.aa419.org/monthly419flashmob.shtml

    3. Re:Anti-Spam Webpages? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the spam specific version is SpamVampire at http://www.hillscapital.com/antispam/index.htm.

  58. Re:We're number one! Oh, crap... by PriceIke · · Score: 1

    7) PROFIT!!!

    Sorry, I had to.

    --
    It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
  59. Silly kids, don't you know... by spentrent · · Score: 1

    ...that spammers have more bandwidth than God? Tomorrow this guy is gonna see a blip on the radar and say, "Ooh, look, I got more traffic!"

    1. Re:Silly kids, don't you know... by mzwaterski · · Score: 0

      Hmm...what if God exclusively used spam to communicate with people...

    2. Re:Silly kids, don't you know... by spentrent · · Score: 1

      Then God knows he should've given me a bigger penis and hot girls with webcams who want to meet me.

  60. We knew this years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    90% of the spam originates from America, all this company are doing is regurgitating Spamhaus's stats

    SpamHaus Register Of Known Spam Operations

    nice to see action being taken....NOT

  61. Why is this marked funny by RodeoBoy · · Score: 1

    I find it interesting.

  62. let's by radja · · Score: 1

    just ban all US email...

    --

    No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
    --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
  63. Re:Spam won't stop until Orlando Soto can't get on by sbergman2 · · Score: 0

    Dear Mr. Soto,

    Congratulations, Mr. Soto. I am writing you today to inform you that I have been authorized to grant you a ****LIFETIME SUPPLY**** of cyanide tablets ****ABSOLUTELY FREE****!!!!!!! That's right. FREE!!!!! No strings attached. We don't need your credit card number. (Enough people already have that.) We have your address and the pills are already in the mail.

    Sincerely,
    The Internet

  64. Spam is vandalism of a public space by Simonetta · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Spam is more like a nuisance crime than a disease. Diseases are natural occurrences, unpleasant yes but a biological function. Spam is a deliberate attempt to pollute a public space for private gain.
    In a sense it's the fault of the original e-mail/internet designers. By creating a nearly free and unlimited communications channel for themselves, they never anticipated that the channel would be hijacked by advertisers who are claiming the internet for their own private personal gain (as a open medium through which they can sell nearly unlimited access to advertising agencies).
    By hijacking it is. Spammers are stealing a public resource.
    A situation like this occured about 80 years ago when radio was becoming popular as a medium. Advertisers set up stations and broadcast ads and chatter over each other's frequencies. Eventually in the early 1930's, the US Federal Communications Commission (and similar agencies in other countries) was formed and clamped down harshly on unregulated broadcasting. That solved the problem of overlapping stations but eventually led to the situation that we have today of stagnant and insipid radio.
    Spamming is also like grafitti, which is a nuisance crime of a person painting a private message in a public space that is too low in value to be protected against defacing by a full-time guard. The public space gets trashed by messages considered ugly to all except the miscreant. Other countries punish this activity harshly and they don't have defaced public spaces.
    Spam will continue until the techno community creates enforceable guidelines to deal with this problem, and then actually enforces them. This could be banning sending messages beyond a certain number or actually selling licenses to spammers to allowing them them to send X million e-mails per month. The only actual realistic solution to spam is to stop allowing unlimited private use of a public communications medium.
    Don't rely on governments to address this problem. Spam will be solved by the open source community coming up with a definition of spam, justification of restriction, and effective cessation of spamming activities when the spammers refuse to follow published guidelines enacted by the open source community. In fact, it's likely that the spammers will use the police against the open-source community's spam-limiting activities.
    In other words, spam will lighten when the open-source community uses their technology and skills to shut the spammers down, regardless of whether or not the spammers have legal authority to flood the internet with millions of unwanted messages.

  65. All of you will run out of transfer before he does by spentrent · · Score: 1

    n/t

  66. us top spammer, china top hoster? by blanks · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://spam.weblogsinc.com/entry/4463682046968893/ Link goes to quote, plus more links backing up this data.... "A study released this week by Commtouch reveals that about 55% of all spam originates in the United States, and that more than 73% of spam refers to websites which are hosted in China. Ninety-nine percent of all websites mentioned in spam sample analyzed by Commtouch were hosted in China, South Korea, the United States, Russia, or Brazil" Here is another link, with a more detailed article. http://www.securitypipeline.com/showArticle.jhtml? articleId=22103058

  67. FTC Can-Spam Act by DaFallus · · Score: 1

    Starting today, you can electronically submit your comments and suggestions to the Federal Trade Commission about the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 ("CAN-SPAM Act"). All comments are due 9/13, so if you actually want to make a difference, now is your chance.

    --
    No one cares what your captcha was

    Houston TX, USA
  68. You paid for that spam -- enjoy it. by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

    They are right in my spam folder. I think I had one false negative since I've began running it a couple of months ago.

    ISPs pass on the cost of receiving spam (bandwidth and additional mail servers), storing spam (RAID arrays), and transmitting the spam to customers when they pick up their e-mail. Spam filtering software which works at the client end might save you some time in dealing with the spam, but the spam has already cost you money by the time it gets to your filtering software.

    1. Re:You paid for that spam -- enjoy it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...but the spam has already cost you money by the time it gets to your filtering software

      Over the years I have received more and more spam, and yet paid less and less for my internet connection (adjusted - barely!- for bandwidth). Absolutely: spam costs ISPs big bucks. Absolutely: ISPs pass on these costs to their customers. But we're probably talking about cents per month per customer.

      BTW: bandwidth, servers, disks - none of these actually cost much money. The extra sysadmin or two to manage all of that... that's what costs money.

    2. Re:You paid for that spam -- enjoy it. by fmaxwell · · Score: 2, Informative

      Over the years I have received more and more spam, and yet paid less and less for my internet connection (adjusted - barely!- for bandwidth).

      Over the years, how much have computer costs, adjusted for performance and storage, dropped? The question isn't whether your absolute costs have dropped, it's how much they could have dropped were it not for spam.

      Absolutely: spam costs ISPs big bucks. Absolutely: ISPs pass on these costs to their customers. But we're probably talking about cents per month per customer.

      According to ISPs, the average cost, per month per customer, is between $2 and $3. That's $24 to $36/year, a significant sum. Businesses spend huge amount dealing with the spam problem. Take a look at NetworkFusionWorld's Spam Calculator" to see just how expensive spam is to businesses.

      When you go to Best Buy, a percentage of what you pay for your purchase is to offset the cost of dealing with spam in the corporate offices. When you pay your taxes, a significant sum is paying government workers to deal with spam. When you order from Amazon.com, some of the money you spend there is to cover their costs for spam. I would not be at all surprised to see the total cost of spam per person averaging over $100/year.

      BTW: bandwidth, servers, disks - none of these actually cost much money. The extra sysadmin or two to manage all of that... that's what costs money.

      In general, I agree with that, but enterprise-class machines with RAID, tape backup, etc. is not the same as home PCs. The cost may be outweighed by the cost of system administrators, but it's still significant -- especially if it means that your connection is slower because their capital equipment budget on another mail server instead of additional broadband routers.

  69. Probing for Matt's formmail by tburt11 · · Score: 1
    About a year ago, I noticed that most probes for Matt's formmail script were coming from an ISP located in the Southeastern US. I blocked a couple of Class C addresses and I saw my SPAM traffic drop by more than 50%.

    I would name names... But I would be afraid he would change IP's and my block would be no good anymore.

    Check your snort/web logs for FormMail probes.

  70. That's not new, ROKSO by cpghost · · Score: 3, Informative

    Spamhaus published ROKSO list has always shown that most top spammers are U.S.-based.

    All it takes is more vigorous law enforcement. Where are the prosecutors, when we really need them?

    --
    cpghost at Cordula's Web.
  71. Figures. by theendlessnow · · Score: 1

    And we just spent 2 years convering all of our Java to Cobol. Sheesh!

  72. Filter spam at firewall level by zboubi · · Score: 1

    Catch those chinese and korean spam before they make it to your smtp:
    This geoip firewall filter for iptables drop mail coming from incriminated countries.

    This tool gets 50% of the spam I should receive. Combined with dspam, I do not receive anything but genuine mails.
    Enjoy !

  73. This doesn't help by maxchaote · · Score: 1

    Great... 86% of blocked spam comes from the US.

    Tmajority of spam that actually makes it into my account, however, is originating from US advertisers using Russian and Chinese spam companies.

  74. Only way out is FTC/FBI and RICO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why doesn't spam come under the same scrutiny and attempts to shut it
    down as P2P?


    Spam is a money maker, and not just for the guys pitching the penis pills. It makes money for ISPs, who charge "high-risk" rates for being associated with it, it makes money for list brokers and other putatively legitimate businesses who sell out your email address to list brokers, it makes money for banks who sell CC services to spam merchants, and so on.

    To fight spam, you have to stop thinking of it only in terms of people sending email, think of it holistically -- other people, with more influence on legislation and enforcement are also making money off it.

    Spam is fully entrenched in the economy and won't be going away. The only way to make it *mostly* go away is for the FTC to get serious about deceptive marketing practices: have the FBI investigate the entire *world* of spam and treat it like an organized conspiracy. Some RICO indictments and convictions of people profiting off of spam (not just the pill seller and email sender) would make it damn hard to run a spam operation.

    Until this happens, we'll see trailer trash guys running a string of zombies get nailed, but the big names turning big dollars won't get touched.

  75. Block Korea china by baomike · · Score: 1

    Why let in connections from these countries?
    If you have business or contacts , maybe, otherwise
    why bother?

    Iptables on a firewall does a lot of good.

    Put selective holes in if you need to, I even block some US ISPs that are bad on spam and probes.

    I connect to the internet for my convienence not theirs.

  76. Re:Research Ideas by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 1
    perform meaningful research on it

    I've got a cattle prod, a tube of KY, and a pretty good idea for a research experiment . . .

    --

    I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

  77. Uh-Oh??? Big news??? by Ektanoor · · Score: 1


    Funny, but for nearly a year, tons of Russian spam could be tracked in one way or the other to US sources...

    But blame the US for it is rather, uuuuh, stupid...

    In fact most spam, even "native" spam, can be tracked to very few sources. And here the US ain't alone. China, India, some networks in Western Europe and Russia can be put in the train. If you are eager to track spammers you going to be amazed that even in the US the big fat spam networks can be counted by the fingers of your hands.

    However, media and even well-known spamhauses, love to point fingers to the "first-source" of spam. For us it can be europeans or americans. For americans it can be chinese or russians. But, if anyone takes the care to see a few of these spam sources, he will see a huge world of trojaned hosts, with auctions reminding the dirtiest slave trade, robots controling the sending of millions of e-mails, tons of traffic that some careless user will have to pay from his pocket.

    Police hunts frequently the wrong people as they don't have a clue about the true picture of this industry. Victims can be whoever, example: young teens that just visited the fan-club of their hero (a true story btw). No porno, no crackers, no kiddiez trying to script around. Mostly innocent sites with TV stars, comics heros or that lovely band from MTV's clips... But "mostly" ends in a banner, a javascript statement or a well-crafted exploit. And soon someone knocks your door searching for those million letters spams.

    Not long ago I said to some friends that we got back to slavery ages. With the only difference that one doesn't need to know his status...

    Tracking the real sources among all the trash that goes on spam industry is very hard. But, sometimes, one has some luck and finds curious things. So, who are the real sources of this slavery trade? There are several, but the big money seems to hide behind a few intereestting figures. Who are they? Well, I believe that Michael Moore could make a second blockbuster if he picks them for the show... Naaaa it ain't Chimney and Bushman. Not even near... But not so far also...

    Anyway I would be a lot harder for Moore to publicize such a new film... This time he would have to be smarter than a fox...

  78. You can't handle the truth! by Detritus · · Score: 1
    For unknown reasons, most of the spam that I receive is in Cyrillic, advertising Russian products and services. Most of the companies appear to be located in Russia. While they may be using zombies on American broadband networks to send their spam, they are definitely not Americans.

    A year ago, most of my spam was from South Korea, in the Korean language, advertising South Korean products and services.

    I get surprising little spam that is written in English.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  79. MOD PARENT UP! (was Re:I need your help) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn, no points when I need them...

    I've already slapped them for a couple hundred MB this morning... getting a steady 19K/sec with the php file, 58K/sec for the text file...

  80. I take you seriously. by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

    When I 1st thought of the idea, I thought that I must be losing it. After thinking about it more, it began to make sense. Giving capital punishment to them is a self-defensive move, not just an emotional 1. We have to be protective of our time.

    It makes perfect sense. I'm even open to vigilante justice, as long as they really are guilty.

  81. Personal experience pooh-poohed on /. by OYAHHH · · Score: 1

    On,

    A couple of occasions during Slashdot discussions of spam I've noted that I get very little spam on holidays such as New Years or the Fourth of July.

    Personally I attributed it to spammers being in the United States rather than the purported "China". Hey, spammers gotta celebrate too ya know.

    But, I was berated on Slashdot that I was loonie and I had no idea what I was talking about. So to all those out there who said I was full of it:

    HA! I told you so.

    --
    Caution: Contents under pressure
  82. Woops! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My bad. Sorry guys.

  83. I can't even read most spam! by OrangeTide · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Most spam I get is full of spaces in the middle of words or weird characters or insane grammar that I can't even figure out what they want me to buy. So not only do I have to read the garbled subject of the message and mark it as spam (because their crazy message evades my filters) I get to sit there confused as to what they were trying to tell me.

    It's just bad marketing to leave the customer confused. Maybe I should just stop using email all together until someone has a better system.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  84. There's also the bandwidth to consider. by khasim · · Score: 1

    Spam can be considered a DDoS attack. Your mailserver uses up bandwidth accepting all those messages.

    Once they've been accepted, then SpamBayes can filter them. But the bandwidth has already been taken.

    I've seen instances where legit email was defered because the receiving server used up all of its mail threads on incoming spam messages.

    And it doesn't take too many zombie spam machines to start seriously impacting a business's T-1 line. Particularly if you run a few different domains on that that T-1.

  85. Slight disagreement on that. by khasim · · Score: 1

    "If people just stop buying stuff from the spam, the success rates will go down low enough that spam will no longer be effective and go away, right?"

    Actually, that is correct. The PROBLEM is that it costs almost NOTHING to send a million spam messages.

    So ANY sales will be enough to justify the expense.

    It's all statistics. A certain percentage of the population will buy this crap.

    "That's why my answer is not to go after the spammers who are slime but often out of US jurisdiction, or even the ISPs because while some of them are evil & look the other way, a lot of them are trying, but it's hard work."

    Actually, most of the spammers are in the US. Spamhaus even lists them.

    "No don't bother with them, I think they should go after the companies selling the crap."

    I agree with that for the most part.

    But /. had an article about mortgage spam a while back. The banks would buy "leads" from companies ... who had bought the "leads" from other companies ... who had bought the "leads" from spammers.

    Of course they were all SHOCKED that they were purchasing leads from spammers. And the spammers promptly were no long retained. So the spammers changed their name and the companies will happily buy leads from CompanyY which happens to have the same address and phone as the old CompanyX.

    In that scenario, NOTHING will change until the banks stop paying for the leads. But the banks have arranged it so they have complete deniability.

    "I guess it's kinda like going after the Johns instead of the prositutes."

    I think that is exactly the point.

  86. Interesting theory but... by CdnZero · · Score: 1

    Spam servers are automated and do not require user intervention unless something fouls up. It's the only way to send out millions of spam. So, your theory isn't sound since the spammer can be out celebrating AND sending out spam without a problem.

    1. Re:Interesting theory but... by OYAHHH · · Score: 1

      Well, you have your theory and I have mine.

      But I'd say that quite a few of those automated zombie MS Windows machines out there are also quite likely to be turned off on holidays.

      --
      Caution: Contents under pressure
  87. spam hunter by Alien54 · · Score: 2
    I said it before. We need to make it profitable for people to go out and hunt spammers. We need to make it profitable to jail them (think of the drug laws example)

    We need to tag them with orange glow in the dark safety tags so people can share their love with them. Behold the Spam Hunter:

    Here we see the Spammer in his native environment, lets pull his network connection and see if we can get him rialed up. Crikey, look at em dial tech support!

    My modest proposal is that we have to make it legal for people and service providers to charge spammers for the traffic they create. If you can make a profit in hunting down spammers, I bet a lot of people would jump at the chance. A federal spam license requiring spammer to register, etc, pay huge taxes to the government, complete with cute little orange tag for the ear. So we know where they live, and allowing people to charge them for the hassle. did I mention that yet? People would get rich off this, hunting down illegal spammers, collecting fees for ISPs, etc. And

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  88. Not in Baltimore it isn't! by lilmouse · · Score: 1

    In Baltimore, the sky is usually Orange (at least at night). Blue skies were rare, and those gorgeous twilight blues almost unseen.

    --LWM

  89. An alternative solution by Alien54 · · Score: 1
    I've posted this here before, but it's still appropriate. Maybe we can get the mob involved in this. As seen in this classic item posted on now [sadly] defunct Segfault.org website back in april 99:

    Mafia Don Announces New Anti-Spam Venture

    As the NSA and FBI fear, traditional crime organizations have been incorporating high-tech communication into their organizations. Although Janet Reno was quoted stating "This is law enforcement's worst nightmare.", techies around the world are sure to be pleased with one New York Syndicate's new venture.

    It all started when Don Dominiqi signed onto his AOL account last Monday morning. His inbox was filled with "Make Money Fast", "Viagra On-Line", and "Teenybopper Web Sex" ads. Lost amidst the drivel was an important note detailing a non-taxed shipment of Marlboros, which were later confiscated by the BATF. Little did he know, as he shouted "Bring me the left hand of this f*cking gutterslime!" what would become of it all.

    Later that same day, Billy "Run!" Brutekowski and Larry "My Eyes!" Plucker cornered the pasty-faced offender of the Family in a small cyber cafe in Greenwich Village. "This was by far the creepiest place the Boss has ever sent us." stated Billy, who only spoke on condition of anonymity. "Everyone in this place looked pale and sickly, like they had already been 'spoken to'. We asked for this punk, and several people quickly pointed him out. Most of the scum we find in gin joints aren't so quick to finger one of their own," Billy continued.

    "He must not watch much TV, because this sh*t didn't even flinch when we came to the corner he was hiding in," Larry proceeded to relate. "We dropped this sheet of paper the Boss had given us on his table and he says 'So you guys want to make money fast, eh?' He puts out his and says to give him $20. This scrawny little dirtball tells me to give him $20!" Larry was quite agitated at this part in his story, and his description of how Sammy Spammer's hand fell off was quite garbled.

    Billy continued, "Up till now, this was a routine visit. We was just being playful. The weird sh*t began when we tried to leave." "This pimply faced kid blocks the door as we try to leave, and I'm thinking to myself 'Great, a f*cking Karate Kid hero. He just stand there, and then he hands me a $5 bill." Billy pulls out the $5, and holds it like it is his first quarter from his favorite grandmother. "They lined up after that, and we had $175 in 'tips' when we left the joint."

    Later that day the Don himself visited the caf, unwilling to believe the story. Although the details are unclear, sources at the caf indicate that the Don has hired them to build and host a new Anti-Spam site. Through a SSL transaction system, the site will accept spam complaints and credit card donations towards 'solutions to problems'. Multiple complaints against the same spammer are added to the total until an acceptable solution has been found.

    Larry tells us that a typical $250 solution is a broken hand, and for $2000 all anyone ever sees again of 'the problem' are his shoes.

    The URL is to be announced next week, and the cyber caf's phones have been jammed with requests for more information.

    We may have to make allowances for inflation, but still ....

    And maybe a few guys can help out getting segfault back online. It was a priceless resource in it's day - Segfault.org website today, and as seen on the Internet Archive

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  90. Doesn't this contradict an earlier post here... by lennnnny · · Score: 1

    http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/20/165 0255&tid=111 So which is it, 71% from China or 80% from the US? Or is it US outfits spamming from China?

  91. Lose lose by Proc6 · · Score: 1
    Sadly, the less overall spam that's out there the higher the desirability to sieze the opportunity and spam your message.

    If most the so called "King Pins" were nailed, and spam dropped by 90%, that 10% would be even more hotly contested and it would drive right back up again. When you get 100 emails and 95 are spam you glaze over the spam. But when you get 6 emails and 1 is spam, you notice it. And getting noticed is what spam is all about.

    So pressure on the spammers isn't the answer. Some system that denies the ability to spam period is.

    --

    I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!

  92. Re:Crush with per message $$$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Start charging for messages like they do for cell phone minutes. Each account has a set limit of free time and then make it a per-message charge.

    Each account level could have certain number of free messages per accounting period.

  93. SPAM is NOT "freedom of speech" by e_AltF4 · · Score: 2

    Rule #0: Spam is theft.
    Rule #1: Spammers lie.
    Rule #2: If a spammer seems to be telling the truth, see Rule #1.
    Rule #3: Spammers are stupid.

    YOUR freedom of speech ends, where MY freedom not to listen begins.

  94. Hurt these people... by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    Apparently, a very limited set of IPs with high-bandwidth connections is dishing out the bulk of the spam...

    We ought to be able to find these people and hurt them...

    ...their ability to connect to the Internet at all, I mean.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  95. Re:Research Ideas by Monoman · · Score: 1

    What the heck is the KY for? ;-)

    --
    Keep the Classic Slashdot.
  96. My favorite spam.. by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

    I'm a fan of the spam that isn't even in english.

    With attachments.

    If you want to sell me something, shouldn't you use a language I understand?

    --
    Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
  97. Only IE -- by robogun · · Score: 1

    -- which no one (at least, who is smart enough to do this) uses any more.

    This concept will never get off the ground until the site becomes Mozilla friendly.

    1. Re:Only IE -- by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 1


      I agree completely. The source code is out there somewhere, so I'm sure someone smarter than I am could make it MozFireOperaFox friendly. I think I'll drop a note to HillsCap in the SpamCop.net forums and see what he thinks. (This particular vampire page is his.)

    2. Re:Only IE -- by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      It doesn't run on *any* browser that runs on MacOS X, I just tried it. So it doesn't really matter what browser I'm running, does it? The site PLAIN DOES NOT FUCKING WORK.

      Remember, I think like a Mac user: either something works or it doesn't, and this doesn't, making it a waste of my (and everyone else here's) time. Make it work, THEN promote it.

      While you're at it, add AT LEAST a "help" link so people know what the hell is going on. I mean, if you expect people to use this website on a regular basis, you need to actually make it a teeny bit friendly... oh and it helps if it works.

    3. Re:Only IE -- by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Oh, and BTW, IE *does* run on MacOS X. And no, this site doesn't work in it. Stop saying that it "only works in IE" is incorrect... at best, you could say it "only works in IE in Windows."

    4. Re:Only IE -- by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 1

      And once again I've left out an important point... It's not my site. I can't change anything about it. It's a quick and dirty page thrown up by a SpamCop user for his use and anyone else who wants to run it. He created it and announced it in the SpamCop forums but it was never meant for the general public, hence the quick-and-dirtiness and total lack of documentation. I should have made that clearer, mea culpa. He seems like a nice guy, so if you'd like to go here and drop him a line then he'd probably be happy to take any suggestions you have.
      > Remember, I think like a Mac user
      Hmm... I have to buy a Powerbook for school. Does that mean I should start stomping and shouting now to get in practice? ;)

  98. Hurricane's doing that by robogun · · Score: 1

    Only 3 spams so far today as hurricane makes landfall in Fla. To compare, last Friday there were 48 by 12 noon. Let's hope the hurricane wipes Boca Raton and all those spammer bastards in the trailer park off the planet.

    1. Re:Hurricane's doing that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I live a few miles south of Boca Raton, and we didn't get hit by the hurricane.

      However, if you'll post the names and addresses of the spammers, I'll see how creatively I can stifle them, if you like.

  99. Stop, identify, and delete your spam automatically by iamcf13 · · Score: 1
    My freeware/shareware programs at:

    http://www.cf13.com/game-over-spammers.htm

    will do just that.


    (x) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
    [The spam has been delivered and the bandwidth has been wasted. In response to this, some of the spammer's time
    is wasted by the CF13-SMTP(TM) / CF13-POP3(TM) program, unwanted spam is filtered out by the user's SpamByte
    code and never appears in their inbox. The remaining spam that isn't filtered out gets a SpamByte code tag in
    the message subject line. In case of bad SpamByte code tags due to corrupted messages or spammers using rogue
    software impersonating CF13-SMTP(TM) / CF13-POP3(TM), use the CF13-POP3(TM) email client to filter out such
    improperly tagged messages via message file deletion.]


    Therefore:

    SpamByte: Game Over, Spammers/Computer Crackers...

    Bryan Taylor
    iamcf13@hotpop.com
    SpamByte code: 7
    (see http://www.cf13.com/game-over-spammers.htm )
    All email containing unwanted content will be summarily deleted or reported as spam.

  100. Blocking port 25 by I-R-Baboon · · Score: 1

    If all ISPs would block port 25 for residential customers, that would channel the mail through their mail servers which they could monitor and disable users till they remove the menace, patch their box, get an AV program and a firewall running. Lie and get disabled for the same thing and on strike three enjoy dial-up. This would also help curtail virii with their own SMTP engines and prevent that deluge from being sent out. The business customers with their own mail servers would not be affected by this, and should have spamcop reports to show if they are spammers and again answer to disabled service till they explain themselves or fix their open relay. "What right would they have to do this!" you may ask, you are a menace to their network (Read the license agreement) and dragging that networks name through the mud if you are contributing to this.

    Changing your current SMTP, say for MacMail, to your ISPs would not change the reply-to address that you setup and still allow you port 110 to POP for that email account. Several ISPs already do this and the amount of spam coming from that network drops so drastically they find themselves removed from Blacklists for their domain name. Computers are as much of a responsiblity to maintain as cars are, if not more given the global influence they can have.

    --
    -1 Overrated (Too many big words for me to comprehend)
  101. I don't buy it. by jonadab · · Score: 1

    According to my analysis, only about 50% of spam is written in a Latin-derived
    character set[1], and that includes all that Spanish spam from Central and
    South America, all the money scams written in mostly ALL CAPS that are
    generally believed to come from Africa, and anything that comes from Western
    Europe or Australia (not much from there I think), and any spam written in
    English coming from Asia, which is doubtless no small amount, in *addition*
    to everything from the US.

    *Most* of the other 50% is written in decidedly Asian character sets (though
    there's a little Cyrillic spam and the occasional Greek message). As much as
    25% of all spam is in the GB2312 character set alone. I have a really hard
    time believing that's coming mostly from the US.

    Maybe my sample is skewed (admittedly, I'm looking mostly at spam sent to
    one address), but it's a pretty good-sized sample (1.3GB).

    [1] For UTF-8 messages, I base my "character set" data on the actual
    characters used, which in spam are usually ideographic or syllabic
    characters from Asia; most English-language spam is written in ASCII
    or Latin-1 or something similar. Most English-language UTF-8 messages
    are from mailing lists related to the open-source community. I suppose
    this is probably because US localized builds of Outlook and its ilk
    don't send unicode by default.

    --
    Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  102. Cogent Communications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I've had a number of problems with a Cogent Communications customer (Glowing Edge) spamming the hell out of one of my addresses. After numerous complaints to Cogent (and a couple of phone calls to their abuse dept.), I determined that they really don't plan to drop this customer (despite being told by their abuse dept. that this customer generated the greatest number of complaints). I've since denied all of their netblocks (see below) from sending mail to me - I recommend others do the same. Don't support ISPs which allow their customers to spam!

    Cogent Communications netblocks:
    209.115.0.0/16
    209.41.192.0/18
    206.1 83.224.0/19
    216.28.0.0/15
    209.146.0.0/17
    66.28. 0.0/16
    66.250.0.0/16
    66.132.0.0/17
    207.254.144. 0/20
    38.112.0.0/13

  103. Originates... by gorfie · · Score: 1

    I think this has always been known to the spam community. The spammers are mostly based in the U.S., so yes, the spam originates from here. However, they route it through other servers... some are broadband and others are in Brazil, China, etc..

  104. FBI failing on spam by Animats · · Score: 1
    Only two cases so far, despite claims that the FBI "has identified over 100 significant spammers, and has targeted half of them for possible prosecution."

    If the FBI arrested fifty spammers a year, we'd see a big drop in spam.

  105. We really need a vampire botnet, not just sites by hadaso · · Score: 1

    hundreds of thousands of trojans constantly usinf spammers' bandwidth would be much more effective in crushing spammers than a few "vampire sites".

    Another thing that crossed my mind in the past thinking about open relays, and now about botnets of trojans relaying spam, is that once their addresses are known, perhaps a good way to reduce their capacity (thus lowering the amount of spam they send) is to send them dummy email for them to relay to each other...

  106. Sending IP in US, Spamvertised sites elsewhere by hadaso · · Score: 1

    I often look at the headers analysis produced by SpamCop before reporting spam, and very often I see spam that is sent (relayed) from US source (probably almost always infected PCs) with spamvertized websites in Korea or China. The Spam is of course English and intended for a North American audience.

  107. Re:Research Ideas by NaDrew · · Score: 1
    What the heck is the KY for? ;-)
    Something to do while you're waiting?
    --
    Vista:XPSP2::ME:98SE