Slashdot Mirror
Dutch Fine Spammers, AOL Reports Drop in Spam
teun writes "This morning the Dutch Telecom Authority, responsible for enforcing the anti-spam law in
the Netherlands, announced their first two fines for Dutch spammers: 25,000 and 42,500 euros. These fines are based on the anti-spam law that became
effective in May this year. Spamvrij.nl is very pleased with these results." gollum123 writes "According to AOL, its subscribers are getting less spam this year. There has been a reduction in both the number of daily email messages to AOL (from 2.1 to 1.6 billion) and in the number of customer complaints about spam." And finally, Saeed al-Sahaf writes "We hear so much about China being the source of spam. But a new study shows China and South Korea as distant second to the United States as the source of spam. Sophos, a leading anti-virus maker has released some findings, which claim that the good old US accounts for almost 42% of spam mails sent out this year, and they chalk it up to lack of security on most desktop computers."
Less subscribers = less spam! AOL has found a way to reduce it, for sure: reduce the number of customers through overpricing and degradation of services. This results in fewer inboxes: Viola! Less Spam!
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Surely you jest.
-Rob
Marriage doesn't have to suck!
Are spam crimes really being enforced correctly? Some would say no. Shouldn't government be focused on combating spam itself by catching each and every spammer, rather than making an example out of a few? It's the same as the RIAA and music; no one worries about getting caught because the odds are so low.
Until we have a centrally-implemented system that tracks every spammer by IP and reports them to ISPs, we won't be making any real progress.
As long as they can rake in more cash than they pay out, fines are useless.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
AOL reports a drop in spam because they falsely classify REAL messages as spam! Most network admins I know have had to deal with AOL at one time or another. They are pretty strict for a large ISP: they require valid rDNS records, last I checked, for one, and many times have my parents (stubborn AOL'ers) found legitimate mail in their spam folder).
In my company, one blocked false positive is considered a mortal sin. Report less spam doesn't mean you are great at blocking it, it might mean you're just too damn aggressive at fighting it.
AOL keeps accounts around long after you leave the service, in the hopes you will one day come back and reactivate. I had an email address there I deleted years ago, only to reactivate it and find I had mail waiting (mostly spam!).
Execute? [Y/N] _
What's more surpsing is that ISP's have not done more to stop being the source of spam (ala blocking port 25 outbound).
Jerry
http://www.syslog.org/
RTFA, the spammers aren't in america, the zombied boxes they use to relay spam are.
No doubt windows in Korea or China is just as insecure, but does the average housewife in Korea have a 3.6ghz P4 with a gig of RAM and 120 gig HDD?
Plus, most of Asia has been RBTL'ed by now, no point in spamming from compromised Korean box.
I think that given sheer amount of insecure PCs with respectable specs in US, that are connected 24/7, the list makes alot of sense.
PS, upon re-reading, Sophos also includes Worms and trojans in their statistic, many big email worms have exploited a bug only exists in the US version of OE, IIRC, so now the list makes even more sense.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
I find this quote particularly interesting:
"...which claim that the good old US accounts for almost 42% of spam mails sent out this year, and they chalk it up to lack of security on most desktop computers."
So is this saying that there's a larger percentage of users in the USA than elsewhere, thus we are responsible for more unprotected PC's, just based on having more users?
Or is it saying that American users tend to be ignorant on security, and PC-education, as opposed to the rest of the world?
When it's easier to imagine yourself as the victim than the villian, then the law seems just.
When it's not, it doesn't.
Most get spam and don't make it.
Very few make CDs, many copy them.
-- Should you believe authority without question?
My boss asked me to put together a graph of the amount of spam we've blocked over the past 18 months. I've seen a pretty steady (other than the occasional trough or spike) increase in spam the whole time. The number increases week by week and I don't see an end in site, unless you consider the point when my mail gateway gets overwhelmed by the amount. For 1200 email users, we're sitting at just over 150,000 blocked spams per week.
But why is the rum gone?
I'd rather see 'viola' than 'wa-la'...
Decay! Decay! Decay! -Helium
The article shows the location of the computers which send spam to legit mail servers.
In this day where most spam is sent from zombied PCs, of course the US leads... Lots of computers here, lots of always-on broadband connections... and what's the ability of our users compared to the rest of the world? US computer owners include a lot who only know how to plug in and turn on.
The number two country is Korea... Again, lots of computers and even higher penetration by broadband.
Where are the web servers for the spamvertized sites? From the spam I see here, the bulletproof hosting seems to be in China and eastern Europe.
Where are the merchants who advertize with spammers? And, where are the spammers themselves? I'll bet the US leads in this as well.
-- Sally
" Here is a good reason: I create the intellectual property"
It's not property.
"spending my time, money and effort. I should be able to do whatever I please with it"
No. You should not be allowed to bother me with it. Yours must be the uggliest website of 2004. I should not have been exposed to it. But since I have been exposed to it, I think that entitles me to one or two things.
Your works are yours until you publish them. Then they become public property. If you don't like those rules, I suggest you move to some planet where they care about what you like.
"and have it enforced in any legal manner I see fit."
Have what "enforced"?
You are making so little sense, that I suggest you ingest some of that intellectual property you're going on about. Perhaps you'll learn something.
"I should also be able to have it protected"
Surely you mean you should have your interests protected? Protecting a work can only be done by allowing as many people as possible to run with it. Information wants to be free. So far you seem to be arguing against that, so your application of the word "protect" in this case seems unfortunate.
"and since I am the tiny guy working out of my garage and do not have the money to do the research or enforce such a law - I ask that the government help protect me from the big mean people who would steal my work"
It's not stealing. Stealing means you cannot use it anymore.
"because they are too inconsiderate to respect my hard work."
There's no law that obliges anyone to respect another person's hard work. If ever such a law was passed, the makers should be taken out back and shot. And their newts too.
This is a free country--if you want to work hard, that is your prerogative. If you do not want to work at all, that's your choice too. If you push the products of your work onto my lawn, those products becomes mine.
Copyrights are a form of welfare--and although I am not opposed to them in principle, their current application causes more problems than they are worth.