Slashdot Mirror


New Spam Site Found Every Three Seconds

Stony Stevenson writes "New figures suggest that 92.3 percent of all email sent globally during the first three months of 2008 was spam. The data from Sophos also indicated that 23,300 new spam-related web pages were created every day during the period, or one about every three seconds. For the first time Turkey's contribution to the global spam problem puts it in the top three offending countries. Compromised computers in Turkey are now responsible for relaying 5.9 percent of the world's junk email, compared to 3.8 percent in the final quarter of 2007."

9 of 164 comments (clear)

  1. ntpdate time.spam.net? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I love it. I can sync my computer to it.

  2. Re:I hate spam... by zappepcs · · Score: 5, Funny

    If spam gives you a pain in the balls, you are eating it wrong.

  3. Wait a minute by relikx · · Score: 5, Funny

    I thought Turkey was a Muslim country, isn't spam some sort of shoulder meat? Oh right, they're secular.

    1. Re:Wait a minute by p0tat03 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Funny, I would have thought that turkeys would say "bok bok b'gawk!"

  4. A Rate Comparision by pyrrhonist · · Score: 4, Funny
    Just to give some idea of the scale, this is more than twice the rate at which the human male thinks about sex.

    I didn't think it was possible.

    --
    Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
  5. Re:Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    You think it's bad now, wait until the spammers can faceboogle you.

  6. Re:ASSP is the answer by Lershac · · Score: 3, Funny

    well if we have exchanged email in the past, he is on the whitelist and I will definitely get his awesome product!

    Or I can blacklist his ass.

    --
    Chuck
  7. Re:open season by calebt3 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Your post advocates a

    ( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based (*) vigilante

    approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

    ( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
    ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
    ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
    ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
    ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
    ( ) Users of email will not put up with it
    ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
    (*) The police will not put up with it
    ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
    ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
    ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
    ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
    (*) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

    Specifically, your plan fails to account for

    (*) Laws expressly prohibiting it
    ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
    ( ) Open relays in foreign countries
    ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
    ( ) Asshats
    ( ) Jurisdictional problems
    ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
    ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
    ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
    ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
    ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
    ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
    ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
    (*) Extreme profitability of spam
    ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
    ( ) Technically illiterate politicians
    ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
    ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
    ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
    ( ) Outlook

    and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

    ( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
    been shown practical
    ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
    ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
    ( ) Blacklists suck
    ( ) Whitelists suck
    ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
    ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
    ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
    ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
    ( ) Sending email should be free
    ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
    ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
    ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
    ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
    ( ) I don't want the government reading my email
    (*) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

    Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

    (*) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
    ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
    ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
    house down!

  8. Re:I dont get it... by Stellian · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...you must have smart friends who NEVER: Your smart friends must also never store your email address anywhere on their harddrive (for example, the browser cache), so that it can't be picked up by the spam sending bot that infected thier machine and does a global scan for "someone@somewhere". Or, only have friends that never get infected. Between the two, you can either:
    - have only geek friend
    - have no friends
    Take you pick - I don't know what's worst.