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.
... until people start spamming using their competition's address to facilitate them getting thrown off their host?
The Web Hosting company I work for has been doing this for years. You spam, you lose. Simple. From our AUP:
# UBE ("spam"): sending unsolicited bulk e-mail, using UBE, even if not sent from American Internet, to advertise (spamvertise) your site, providing any service to spammers such as mailboxes or Web sites.
Is this just now catching on? Shocking.
Nobodies Prefect
Tidbits for Techs Technology Blog
Based on the phrase "given authority", I gather that law enforcement will investigate the situation before forcibly shutting down the site. Failing to do so could result in a counter-suit claiming that law enforcement did not do their job.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Hmmm. Sounds like a really, really good idea now doesn't it?
-- MG
It will do something to those spammers - the ISPs can (and will) block the IP addresses. We're not talking about a citizen's action group here, but a collaboration of every major ISP in Britain.
In theory it sounds nice. However, there are several problems here. First, the offending web site may be hosted by an ISP that doesn't give a damn. It may be overseas. It may be in Russia, or North Korea for that matter. If it is in a non-british jurisdiction all they can do is block access to it. There is no way to take it down. The link may be a referral. As others have already noted, the linked address may be that of someone the spammer doesn't like, resulting in the shutdown or blocking of an innocent web site. With so many potential problems, I doubt whether this initiative has a chance of succeeding.
----- One learns to itch where one can scratch.
I've noticed that many of the people who bitch the most about spam are also the first one to produce simplistic and pedantic retorts to steps people make to do something about it. "But somebody might not get their email for a day."
Spam Whiners: Shit or get off the pot.
Either somebody does *something*, however imperfect or flawed, or they do nothing. The whining and the complaining and the doing of nothing adds up to exactly nothing but noise.
I want actions taken, and I want them taken *now*. Collateral damage? Unavoidable -- any solution strong enough to work is going to cause collateral damage. This isn't a kernel bugfix, the patch doesn't have to be formally proved at an academic conference, it has to be implemented and adjusted as needed for maximum effectiveness.
If you're not making mistakes, you're not making anything, and not doing anything about spam has been how effective?
This tumor is so rooted in the Internet, that there is no way to cut it all out without removing some healthy tissue. There is probably no perfect solution to this problem, but it HAS to be addressed.
I truly can't see people resorting to trying to advertise competitor's web sites via SPAM to get them shut down. They'd open themselves up to way too much liability if that actually happened.
IMHO: This solution does a pretty decent job of targetting the tumor without removing much healthy tissue. Again, no solution will perfectly home in on just spammers... innocents will always get caught up in the effort to remove this problem. The trick is to just come up with items and balance it's positive effects against its negative effects.
-- "A chicken is an egg's way of making another egg."
You just paid to advertise a competitor?
Thanks!
liqbase
"Collateral damage is just fine--Until I'm the one being damaged."
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Either somebody does *something*, however imperfect or flawed, or they do nothing. The whining and the complaining and the doing of nothing adds up to exactly nothing but noise.
It wasn't a whine nor a complaint. And it can have very serious reprocussions. How happy would you be if your legitimate, non-spamming online business was blacklisted because someone else forged fake spam?
I want actions taken, and I want them taken *now*. Collateral damage? Unavoidable -- any solution strong enough to work is going to cause collateral damage.
Wonderful attitude. "Fuck the innocent as long as I'm happy (and it doesn't happen to me)"
This system could be useful, but considering there was no detailed mention of how they're going to deal with this potential problem its a valid question.
The harder spam becomes to send the better it is. There is no instant cure, stop watching Oprah you american. The real world requires you to work had on multiple fronts to solve a problem. This is just one tiny drop on the hot plate. But together with all the other little drops it is making a difference.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Right, and what happens when someone who really does want to purchase a year's supply of "Colon Blow 5000" sues them because the ISPs implementing the block are preventing them from accessing the site? Unless it's backed by a law saying that the spam is illegal (thereby making the block legal) I don't see this as holding up in court. Obviously people *do* buy these stupid products, so this is ripe for a lawsuit from the spammers.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
This should have been: the existence of joe jobs is no reason not to penalize actual spammers.
About ten of the first replies to this topic all come up with the genius suggestion of spamvertising the competition, revealing they have not read the article (which admittedly does not addresss how to stop it), and got modded Insightful 2-5.
What is this, some sort of circle jerk?
When I submit my daily dose of spam to Spamcop, I can see that 90% of all websites referred to by spam mails are hosted in China and Brazil, and I don't think either country will do a similar move anytime soon.
It is already common practice for spammers to use bullet-proof hosts (which is even mentioned in TFA).
So I don't think this move will change anything as far as spam goes, but the potential for abuse (see some of the previous comments) will increase, given that most sites hosted by UK ISPS are legitimate.
...is people acting like it's a bad thing.
Anti-spammers have always maintained that ISPs should kill the websites of known spammers. That's what a number of the blacklists out there are about -- they list ISPs that don't kick off websites that have been advertised through spamming, even if the spam was sent from a different ISP.
This is a good thing. Spammers should lose their Internet access, period. They should also lose their lives, but ISPs aren't really in the position to do that kind of thing.
So much whining about a very good practice. Any ISP that allows spammers on their network should be shunned, and their management shot.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
Discouraging, boycotting, or flat-out disallowing companies from hocking their products through spam would be great. This would probably cover a minority of spam-financed revenues, however. It seems that the real money comes from spam campaigns that are already illegal. They're from shady or non-existent companies. They're selling counterfeit products that sometimes even have recklessly dangerous ingredients added. And, of course, there are also the get-rich-quick scams. Going after Viagra makes no sense here unless it can be shown that Pfizer is actually contributing to the spam campaign in some way. AFAIK, all the Viagra emails you see are fraudulent ads not sent by Pfizer. Viagra is a prescription drug, remember - how is it even possible for legit online vendors to sell Viagra without verifying the prescription?
Yes, I'm doing the same with very good success.
One property of this system is really attractive: Spamvertizing a webpage damages the IP number of this webpage, so that the owner of that IP number will probably seek damages against the spammer.