Slashdot Mirror


Spamhaus: MCI Makes $5M A Year In Spam Profits

An anonymous reader submits "According to a new Spamhaus report, MCI makes $5 million a year hosting spammers and illegal spamware. MCI/UUNET has long topped the Spamhaus spam supporting ISPs list, with nearly 200 active SBL entries. MCI even took on spammers such as iMedia, when they were terminated by Savvis in their half-hearted response to leaked pro-spam memos."

6 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. Re:only $5 million by Stevyn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Their gain of $5 million is costing companies many times that. That's why it's bad.

  2. MCI Doesn't care about $5M revenue sources by skoda · · Score: 5, Interesting

    MCI is a $27 billion company. (according to http://global.mci.com/about/investor_relations/fun damentals/).

    Corporately, they don't care about $5M revenue streams. If it's not a homerun, billion dollar profit potential, it's not going to be developed.

    I doubt MCI is actively pursuing SPAM as a business venture. Not unless they believe it's going to generate billions in the next five years. Otherwise, this is a non-story, about MCI making a few pennies because they aren't 100% vigilant.

  3. Making Money by Bonhamme+Richard · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Note: I'm stealing this for Richard Marcinko's Rogue Warrior's Strategy for Success. Don't sue me Dickie, I gave you credit.

    To paraphrase an anecdote used as an example in Dickie's book :

    Johnson and Johnson's Corporate credo lists J&J's responsibilities in this order 1) to the consumer 2) to the employees 3) to the community 4) to the shareholders (meaning to making money.)

    When Tylenol (a J&J product) was tampered with in Chicago, resulting in the deaths of several people, the local police advised J&J that it was an isolated incident, and that a recall was not necessary.

    J&J recalled anyway (a $350 million process) and consumers flocked back to Tylenol when it was reintroduced to the market with new tamper proof packaging. Since consumers had proof that J&J cared about them, J&J ended up making money.

    The moral of the story is that caring about your consumers may be less profitable in the short run but that in the long run companies that put the consumer first do better. It's obvious to me that MCI does not put the consumer first. Point 4 on the J&J credo is point 1 in MCI's strategy. MCI just lost one customer.

  4. God doesn't care if you don't say "bless you!" by MorboNixon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a former employee of UUNet, whom, in turn, got bought out by Worldcom, which was once and now is again called MCI...*breath*...I can say that my pop.net POP3 account I had when I employee there remained active for at least 4 years after I left in 2000. It only got deleted after I stopped checking it for over a month.

    What does this mean? Well, speaking from experience, they don't have nearly as many people monitoring this stuff as they should. So, my guess is that this SPAM abuse is the result of neglect. However, as with most any telecom/IT company, Marketing and Sales drives the business, the techies are beholden to the machinations of the Marketroids and Salesbots. This could be their bright idea.

  5. I bet it costs MCI more than $5M by sbaker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yeah - they may inadvertently make $5M from spammers - but I bet the cost of spam to them is a LOT more than that. It follows that this is not an intentional part of their business model - but merely the residue of spammers that they've been unable to eliminate.

    --
    www.sjbaker.org
  6. Re:illegal spamware? by Secrity · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Spamming in the US is not illegal, sending spam illegally is illegal. Selling spamware IS illegal in Virginia and UUNet has a large presence in Virginia.

    The Virginia law says:

    18.2-152.4. Computer trespass; penalty. ... B. It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to sell, give or otherwise distribute or possess with the intent to sell, give or distribute software which (i) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of facilitating or enabling the falsification of electronic mail transmission information or other routing information; (ii) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to facilitate or enable the falsification of electronic mail transmission information or other routing information; or (iii) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in facilitating or enabling the falsification of electronic mail transmission information or other routing information.