Slashdot Mirror


Stichting Spamvrij (spamfree.nl foundation) Closing

TeVi writes "Stichting Spamvrij.nl (Spamfree.nl foundation), the authority on spam in The Netherlands, has decided to stop. Spamfree.nl gained international attention for their fight against the CyberAngels spammers. More information can be found on their website regarding the shut-down." It's the classic story of too much work to do, not enough time; meanwhile another reader notes: "Some new anti-spam products out there - but everyone seems to agree that even Sender ID ideas and laws won't do much."

35 of 118 comments (clear)

  1. English text by Karamchand · · Score: 5, Informative

    is available here.

  2. Sysiphus labour? by DenDave · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A sad thing but the reality is that there is nothing they could do to stop spam. In fact the only thing anyone can do to stop spam is to stop using email. Yep, the spammer wins.. I abandoned my email account. So in effect he loses because my address is now worthless..

    --
    -if at first you don't succeed, stay the heck away from paragliding.
    1. Re:Sysiphus labour? by Timesprout · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree. I was so pissed of with all the junk mail I was getting through the post few years ago I abandoned my house so my address was worthless to them. Altering my lifestyle completely and living in a cardboard box under a bridge can be a bit of a chore but its worth it not to let the spammers win.

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    2. Re:Sysiphus labour? by Schlemphfer · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Cute comparison. But I bet you aren't one of those people who has an email account getting over 1000 spams a day. I'm giving up that account because it's taking me a half hour every other day to sort out the remaining spam, even after Thunderbird's spam filter has run.

      By the same token, I bet if some delivery person was putting a thousand unwanted packages in your living room each day, and you couldn't stop him, you would, in fact, choose to move.

      --
      I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
    3. Re:Sysiphus labour? by FictionPimp · · Score: 2, Funny

      no, I could shoot him and hide the body in my septic tank. *note to all law enforcment, there are no bodys in my septic tank, please dont look*

  3. need anti spam adverts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    on TV etc.. encouraging public not to buy from spammmers citing illegality of approach & risks

  4. They were good at something. by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 4, Informative

    From what I read this morning in the dutch news, they did find out that a notorious dutch spammer didn't stop spamming, so they got him into a lot of trouble. There was also something about some more "detective" work that they were good at, but I can't remember what it was at the moment.

    --
    This is the sig that says NI (again)
    1. Re:They were good at something. by LuSiDe · · Score: 3, Informative

      Agreed. Rejo (from Spamvrij.nl) really did a lot of good investigations. When the accused ones attacked him, accusing Rejo for e.g. libel, he was always able to back up what he said, or did so later because he still depended on some details. His succesful research made various big spammers shitting in their pants.

      Martijn Bevelander, Akin Franks, Patrick de Bruin among others, they really got bashed away in the media. Even when they tried to defend themselves, Rejo was able to be too smart, providing details which mattered and looked suspicious. And these discussions were sometimes even live, e.g. on Webwereld.nl. Search of Webwereld.nl for 'Rejo', 'Spamvrij', or one those names i mentioned earlier. Its in Dutch though. Rejo also did some interviews and debates on the public radio in NL, discussing the spam problem.

      Thanks Rejo. You'd be a good cop ;^)

      --
      WE DON'T NEED NO BLOG CONTROL.
  5. CyberAngels? by computational+super · · Score: 2

    What are (were?) the "CyberAngel spammers"? I missed that one.

    --
    Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    1. Re:CyberAngels? by TeVi · · Score: 4, Informative

      short answer: http://www.cyberangels.nl/

  6. Looking for an Altruisitiic Billionare by Alien54 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Maybe some Altruistic Billionaire would be interested in funding these guys. Especially guys who have a track record contributing to the public good. You know, get them some help.

    Sure, we know of billionaires giving the money away to things like cancer research. Computer Industry Billionaires

    Maybe something like just a mere few hundred thousand or a million for these dedicated warriors. Get them some help.

    But then, my cynicism kicks in hard, really hard.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:Looking for an Altruisitiic Billionare by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Maybe some Altruistic Billionaire would be interested in funding these guys. Especially guys who have a track record contributing to the public good."

      Maybe he could secure the operating-system he sells first, so it doesn't get used to send spam...

  7. Laws *can* do much by decarelbitter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The postings states that people seem to agree on the fact that laws can't do much in the fight against spam. I disagree on that. At the moment many countries have fairly good laws against spam. However, the problem is not with those laws, but the lack of enforcement of them. If countries aren't willing to setup a group/agency/team/etc. that has the technical expertise to trace and track the spammers and the legal abilities to use the existing laws to their full extent than those laws aren't going to be of much help.

    Oh, and the correct URL for the English Spamvrij.nl website is www.free-of-spam.nl.

  8. Spam can be stopped... by ravind · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Here's an idea. Give the spammers what they want, which is more traffic. Create a small client that anyone can install on their machines, all it does is use your spare CPU cycles and Bandwidth to repeatedly hit the links that are advertised in spam. If the servers can withstand the mass DDOS, then the bandwidth costs will make them think twice before sending out emails. Use P2P to distribute the list of links to be hit and the spammers will have no central "black-list" server to bring down in retaliation.

    The reason spam is hard to stop is because right now it costs next to nothing to send out those emails, we need to raise the cost of sending out spam, and I think a DDOS will do it. Put the slashdot effect to good use!

  9. Bogofilter by Gadzinka · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't understand all this cry about spam. I've been using bogofilter almost since day one and today, if I see one spam a month I'm surprised.

    Meanwhile, my spam folder is autocleaned via cron job from messages older than five days. Sometimes it accumulates 1500 messages (yes, that's 1500 spams in five days)[1].

    But I had to ignore some guidelines to achieve these results. I didn't teach bogofilter from dead corpus, I just installed it over empty database and taught it live. Also spam cutoff is set to 50 instead of the default 90 (?). I do have occasional false positives (much rarer than false negatives) this way, but I like it anyway.

    The best testament to all this is the unmasking of my address on /.

    And there are better filters than bogofilter.

    Robert

    PS I work exclusivelly on Linux, but viruses are annoying anyway, so I installed Clam AV, hence viruses don't increase my spam count.

    --
    Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
  10. Laws could work by Monoman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem is that everyone keeps trying to create laws to specifically address the spam problem.

    There are already existing laws against fraud, computer B&E, etc.

    What needs to changes is obviously the mail protocol and the parties held accountable. I know you could joe-job someone to frame them but in some countries you are innocent until proven guilty.

    --
    Keep the Classic Slashdot.
  11. I guess I just don't get it by Duke+Machesne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It still doesn't make any sense that there is as much spam as there is: these people are out to make money, right? It's not just to annoy people, is it?

    But nobody even reads this shit, do they? Much less buy whatever it is they're selling... do people actually give money to these fuckers?

  12. Only one way to stop spam by gregor-e · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Spam exists because it is profitable. If each of us would take the time to select just one spamming business per day, and tie up their resources by calling their agents, requesting literature, doing whatever we can to decrease their profit, we could end spam by cuting it off at the root. As long as spam is a more affordable delivery vehicle, it will get used.

  13. PopFile by bstadil · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I don't understand what the big deal is with spam. I implemented PopFile 6 months ago and I get 99.5%+ accuracy. Less than one piece of misdirected mail per day.

    Keep the bucket simple and have lots of Magnets for the people you normally interface with and Spam is a thing of the past. You can even put the server on a remote location so it is available when you travel.

    You can even redirect your spam to a Gmail account and have it all marked Spam thereby helping Google et al improve their filtering tools.

    --
    Help fight continental drift.
    1. Re:PopFile by ravind · · Score: 2, Insightful

      99.5% accuracy is good, but not good enough. It means I still have to scan through the 1500 emails marked as spam to find the 1 email a month that might be a false positive. The only difference is I'm sorting them out in the "spam" folder as opposed to the "inbox".

      If I sound overly critical, it's only because I want to emphasize the importance, in my mind of having a solution that is 100% accurate, which I can blindly rely on.

    2. Re:PopFile by bstadil · · Score: 2, Interesting
      What is the problem with a false positive? IF you have Magnets from everyone you normally interface with it has to come from someone that you do not normally correspond with

      If really important that person most likely has other means of getting hold of you and relaying on email is folly.

      What I am trying to say is you have to amortise the problem of one false positive with the effort involved in getting better accuracy. Not worth it and most likely not doable.

      By the way a mis-directed email does not mean Spam but often is Personal stuff that goes to a Subscribe or Business bin.

      --
      Help fight continental drift.
    3. Re:PopFile by ravind · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You seem to be approaching this problem only from your experience with an email address reserved for personal matters.

      Other people have their addresses up on websites because it is important for legitimate strangers to be able to contact them, and it is often their only means of being contacted.

      These are also the kind of email addresses that get the largest amounts of spam. In short, false positives can be a problem, and we should be looking at a way of eliminating them rather than taking the "it's a cost I can live with" approach that you seem to advocate.

  14. SPF, Caller-ID and Sender-ID by Zocalo · · Score: 4, Informative
    Once again, there seems to be some confusion over this in the linked articles, both of which were written after the situation stabilised, so for those that don't know:
    • SPF (Sender Permitted From) is one of the original DNS based schemes for verifying an IP was authorised to send an email. It is an open standard using text only records that was proposed by Meng Wong of pobox.com and is still going just fine with many big mail domains (Hotmail, Gmail...) using it.
    • Caller-ID is the original closed standard Microsoft proposal that uses XML records. It goes beyond SPF in its scope, but is encumbered by numerous pending patents which Microsoft has yet to adequately disclose.
    • Sender-ID is a derivation of Caller-ID, also by Microsoft, that was proposed to the IETF as a potential "standard" mechanism for acheiving DNS based sender validation. Owing to it sharing many of the same patent issues of Caller-ID and a failure of the parties in the MARID working group at the IETF to arrive at a compromise that open source developers were happy with, Caller-ID was rejected.

    Caller-ID and Sender-ID are currently languishing in Redmond, with Microsoft yet to make any announcements about whether or not it intends to implement them anyway. SPF-Classic on the otherhand is still gaining momentum, with tens of thousands of domains registered as having SPF records, plus an unknown number of unregistered ones. SPF-Classis is also supported by most MTAs and anti-spam solutions, either directly or via a plug-in, and is most likely to become the "default standard" as things stand.

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    1. Re:SPF, Caller-ID and Sender-ID by BenFranske · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I really wish people would stop thinking SPF is only a spam stopping thing. Really, it's not! As you can see if you really read about SPF for more than 30 seconds is that SPF is a way of checking to see if a server claiming to send mail from some domain is really authorized to do so.

      Lots of people on /. think this isn't a problem, most of them are clueless. For those of us that run mailservers that see any kind of real traffic we know that a LOT of mail is sent with spoofed domains. Some of it is spam, some virii, some just annoying but it IS a problem and SPF solves it in a pretty easy to implement way.

  15. One small step for spam... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...one giant leap for spamkind.

  16. Re:Looking for an Altruisitiic Billionare - I am by RedLaggedTeut · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, I have been promised 20 Mio. from a wealthy billionaire to fight spam, but the sponsor wants to stay unnamed, so could you please help me in this business transaction - call me at NIGERIA-1414-14124

    --
    I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
  17. ddos the spammers by wolfywolfy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have an idea for beating spam -- renegade style. Everyone forwards their spam to a server(s), which intelligently sorts the mail, finding culprit websites, then a massive distributed network (SETI@home style) retrieves worst-offending URLS from the server, then DDOSes (./ effect s) the spammers websites. Their bandwidth is quickly maxxed. IANAL but I imagine this isn't law-friendly. It's using the zombie-network theory against the spammers (except this time we opt into the network).

    I've set up a SF project, anyone wanna help?

    The simple version right now just uses a javascript auto-refresh page to draw images off several sites at a time, display, then request the server for more URLs. Once a site goes down you get a 'kill'. You could run teams like seti.

    Ideally it'd run as a daemon or win service, and be bandwidth-limited.

    --
    *meep*
    1. Re:ddos the spammers by FooAtWFU · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The problem: Spammers don't run their own websites. You do.

      (Well, at least if you use Internet Explorer or don't keep your virus protection up to date, you do.)

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  18. standard "filtering is not the answer" post by FooAtWFU · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Filtering! You think spam is "OK" because of filtering?!? My site has had 4 gigabytes of traffic these past six days, and I'll tell you: Most of that is not the httpd. It's just spam spam spam spam spam to the umpteenth degree. Someone has to pay for that bandwidth and the processor power to do that filtering. And it's not the spammer.

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  19. Re:The only solution by Karzz1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The only solution to the problem is to start paying for sending emails. Before everybody starts modding me down, tell me is it a problem for you to pay 1 cent per sent email?

    I work for a company that sends out legitimate email newsletters to several million subscribers a day. Even at 1 million emails a day, that would effectively put my company out of business.

    Also, what about all the mailing lists out there. This would have the same net effect on say the Linux Kernel Mailing List as having patents in OSS/Free software.

    --
    Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
  20. A modest proposal by INT+21h · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Spamhunters" the tv-show. I'm serious! Think about it, several episodes of pretty ppl running around with wifi-gear and blinkenboxes and having lovelife-problems while hunting down spammers, crackers, 419ers, identity thieves, pedos, virus writers, whatever. It seems to be the only way of educating the public these days. CSI: Internet, you know it makes sense!

  21. What bridge? by kop · · Score: 2, Funny

    Please tell me where your cardboard box is located,
    i might have an interesting mortgage offer for you.
    You can safe many $$$ on loans that way!

  22. choking on spam by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If spam fines were earmarked to support exactly these effective antispam groups, the scaling of spam would scale their efforts. The predator/prey relationship would keep spam to a minimum. Once at the top of a sustainable foodchain,feed on other privacy/security vermin in the abundant ecosystem could allow them to hunt spam to extinction. Now that fines are actually being collected, the rest of us can learn from this negative example.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  23. Spamgourmet solved my problem by SysKoll · · Score: 2, Informative
    At the risk of repeating myself, spamgourmet solved my problem. It's a free and open source disposable email address system that is traceable and also good for anti-phishing measures.

    Let's say your spamgourmet account is joeblow. This gives you unlimited addresses of the form prefix.accountname_at_spamgourmet.com.You post on some web forum with the address web.forum.joeblow_at_spamgourmet.com. But you give your bank the address mybank.joeblow_at_spamgourmet.com. If a spammer collects the address from the web forum and sends you a phishing message, you can 1. disable the web.forum.joeblow address except for some selected senders, 2. immediately know that the phishing message is a scam because your bank would not write you to this address.

    Note: Yes, I _did_ have to abandon my old email address because it was mass-spammed all the time. The spamgourmet server filters out the crap (spammed addresses are disabled) and then forwards my email to a private "secret" address.

    There are also various features that limit the ability of a random spammer to attack your account.

    The code is free. Right now there is only one public spamgourmet server. It would be nice if someone picked the code and created his own replica. And of course, the project could use more coders.

    --

    --
    Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/

  24. Re:Filters... And losing important email. by Gadzinka · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So you are in a position of luxury where it doesn't matter if a legit email is filtered out every now and then. I'm sure it works for you.

    For the last 3yrs I've been working as a freelance consultant. Also I'm the typical guy with anxiety-depression condition, that has problems with everyday life support. And yet, I am able to keep all the important (i.e. paying) jobs w/o worrying about emails lost to spam filtering.

    Get a life, get some good spam filter and stop bitching. In fact, for last three years, most of my lost income has been due to overzelous spamfighters (like ORBS etc).

    Robert

    --
    Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162