Washington Post Blog Shuts Down 75% of Online Spam

ESCquire writes "Apparently, the Washington Post Blog 'Security Fix' managed to shut down McColo, a US-based hosting provider facilitating more than 75 percent of global spam. " Now how long before the void is filled by another ISP?

Comments

Re:Not Just Spam

[John Straffin]

Now, please stop promoting nonfactual bullshit.

Um... this is /. we're talking about here...

Re:ISPs are clueless?

[lysergic.acid]

i've never heard of these particular ISPs or web hosts, so i don't know what their policies are. but i would be pretty pissed off if Verizon, Cox Digital, Comcast, etc. were packet shaping to throttle p2p traffic while letting spammers inundate mail servers around the world with spam and spreading mal-ware that actually causes real damages to people and businesses.

the RIAA/MPAA have government support for forcing ISPs to finger subscribers accused of illegal file sharing, and are even allowed to circumvent the courts to obtain private user info. this may be the interests of a powerful industry lobby, but it in no way serves public interest. meanwhile, clamping down on SPAM originating domestically does serve public interest, but the government has done little to combat spam, even protecting spammers to an extent with the CAN-SPAM act by preventing individuals from suing spammers, or states from enacting stricter anti-spam laws.

the only thing i can think of to explain this disparity is that spam is a form of marketing, and the U.S. government has always had a very pro-business attitude, to the extent of even placing commercial interests above public interest. since a lot of big, well-known corporations also employ spammers to advertise their products & services, and because the spammers themselves are engaging in commerce/capitalism, it has been sanctioned for so long and even granted a degree of legal legitimacy. in stark contrast, the federal government started cracking down on file sharing in 1996 when the DMCA was passed.

so i a grandma, who only uses her computer to check e-mail once a month, or a 7-year-old girl who downloaded a couple Britney Spears songs she heard on the radio, can be sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages by the RIAA. but someone whose computer is shot to shit by commercially-developed malware is powerless against the companies who make money off of that malware. i guess the lesson here is that it's ok to be unethical so long as you're exploiting people for profit.

Re:Not Just Spam

[Danse]

I'm trying to be pedantic here, but the GP never mentioned the word alleged. You're just twisting his hypothetical situation to suit your argument.

So what? He was twisting reality to suit his argument. Nobody has perfect knowledge, especially when it comes to a situation like the one described, of someone being assaulted on the street. It's a ridiculous argument. That's why the best answer is to stop it if possible and have it be sorted out in an objective way through the legal system. It's not perfect, but it's better than assaults in the street.