Slashdot Mirror
UK ISPs to Shut Down Spamvertised Websites
JebuZ writes "The Register is currently reporting that UK ISPs are targeting ecommerce websites run by spammers in a new 'get tough' policy on junk mail. ISPs belonging to the London Internet Exchange (LINX) have voted through a code of practice which gives them the mandate to shut down websites promoted through spam, even if junk mail messages are sent through a third-party or over a different network. The move is intended to remove the financial incentive to send spam." There's also a BBC story.
They have been doing that for years. It's called a joe job, after the first victim of such a scam. These are generally quite easy to detect, though, so they do not generally lead to the victim's website being shut off. The main damage is in the annoyance and the bounces and responses received by the victim, which constitute something akin to a DDoS attack.
In any case, the existence of joe jobs is no reason to penalize actual spammers and stop them from profiting from their spam runs. The only way to do that is shutting off their websites.
Please note the article is refering to a code of practice not a law. There will without doubt be different ways in which ISPs might and will implement it. If a competitor is spamming "on your behalf" then you're going to get a warning from your ISP saying that they're considering yanking your plug... you'll then get to address that and show circumstance.
Then if the chaps framing you are in the UK there's legal action you might take against them.
This is a good thing. It's not a draconian law, it's a business consortium agreeing that they they to focus on an issue and deciding common policy on how to address it.
Code of practice, not law.
The LINX Best Current Practice on Unsolicited Bulk E-mail ("the spam BCP") is carefully written so as to avoid being a way to create denial of service attacks.
LINX does not adjudicate complaints; our ISPs members do. You can complain to an ISP for tolerating spamvertised web sites just like you can complain to them for tolerating someone sending spam. If they follow Best Practice they will cut off the web site if, only if, and not before they satisfy themselves that the spam was sent by or with the consent of the web site owner.
Of course, it is possible that they could get it wrong; miscarriages of justice do occur in every area of life. This is not a reason not to have any rules at all. It is up to the ISP to take care when considering a complaint so as not to cut their customers off without good reason. Naturally, some will consider this an unnecessary delay - and even evidence that the ISP is not serious about cancelling the account. Well, it's not possible to please everybody all the time; you've just got to craft the best policy you can and run with it.
Malcolm Hutty
LINX Regulation Officer.
No, most spammers profit by re-selling their spamming services. Spam is a remarkably low-hit, low-margin, and very unreliable advertising vehicle.
Where the real spammers make their money is in creating the *illusion* that you, too, can make your fortune by paying them to send out 1,000,000 emails. In a way, spammers are like the online equivalent of those huckster-like classified ads in the backs of tabloid papers. They aren't selling any product themselves... they are selling an advertising service to normal people operating under the pretenses that there is money to be made.
In fairness, I'm sure there are citable examples of spammers who made money selling product. I'm just willing to bet that those are the exception, not the rule.
Self-referential sigs are rarely entertaining.