Slashdot Mirror


Forty Years of Spam Email (bbc.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The BBC has a video celebrating the 40th birthday of spam email. Here's a transcript of the video: "It is 40 years since the first spam email was sent. Marketer Gary Thuerk composed an email selling his company's newest computers and sent it to 400 users on ARPANET, which was the network that become the basis for the internet. Why is it called spam? It has been suggested that it was called spam after a song in a Monty Python sketch. Where patrons of a cafe were repeatedly offered something they didn't want. The concept of spam is nothing new. Unsolicited telegrams were sent over 100 years ago and we've come to accept junk mail as part of everyday life. Now [nearly 60%] of all email is spam. Like most rubbish, it can be found everywhere on earth."

95 comments

  1. If all you do about it is filter ... by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In the another 40 years the problem will be astronomically worse. In fact if all we do is keep trying to filter out spam, the problem will almost certainly be unbeatable within another decade. The spammers know that they are slowly winning the war against the filters as the signal:noise ratio keeps coming down ever so slightly as they get a little more spam through with each iteration. They know that the complement to this is that more legitimate communication ends up getting automatically junked by the same filters, which means that eventually the filters stop being useful.

    The only way to end this problem going forward is to finally look at spam for what it is. Spam is an economic problem. Spammers don't send you spam to make you mad or to waste your time. Spammers send you spam to make money, plain and simple. The only way to end it is to stop them from making money on it. You can't legislate it away by throwing arbitrary penalties at spammers - we've even heard of spammers being murdered on the street and it didn't stop more spammers from coming up to take their place. The only way to stop spam is to stop them from getting paid.

    This has been shown effective before. We need to track down how they are getting paid - it most often is based on click-throughs so we need to find who owns the spamvertised domain - and interfere with it. If the money doesn't get to the spammer, they no longer have a reason to send spam.

    Everything else is a waste of time, money, storage, more money, and more time.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:If all you do about it is filter ... by i.r.id10t · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And since I run my own domain, I can give each company their own address. This way I know who sells off that bit of info (or got hacked) and if I try to unsubscribe and it isn't honored I can kill off that address.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    2. Re:If all you do about it is filter ... by damn_registrars · · Score: 2

      Check your spam folder in gmail and see what's in there. If you just signed up recently there isn't much but it won't take long. Eventually you'll need to check it regularly to find out what you're missing that you actually want to read. Filters are only making the situation worse and that's all they can do from this point forward.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    3. Re:If all you do about it is filter ... by dejitaru · · Score: 1

      fun fact, not everyone uses Google to manage their email
      Give that roughly 50% of emails is spam (Sept 2017), I hardly say "problem long solved"

    4. Re:If all you do about it is filter ... by gravewax · · Score: 1

      mostly stopped using my gmail account now, it is 90% spam content. Only check it occasionally now to point the people that still mail me their to my new address.

    5. Re:If all you do about it is filter ... by another_twilight · · Score: 3, Funny

      we've even heard of spammers being murdered on the street and it didn't stop more spammers from coming up to take their place

      I'm not sure that this solution has been properly and thoroughly tested, and I don't think, in good conscience and out of respect for the scientific principle that we can dismiss it so casually until we have more evidence.

      Personally I'm a fan of a Lex Talionis type solution, where for every piece of Spam (unsolicted commercial email) sent, the sender must recieve (eat) one 'piece' of Spam (spiced ham). In one sitting. I'm happy for piece to be set at 1g. Small time offenders should survive that. And be suitable chastened.

    6. Re:If all you do about it is filter ... by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I miss a real email about once a year from SPAM filters in Gmail, and it's usually a shady email (as I contact form from a small website I setup, and didn't whitelist the address).

      Every now and again a registration confirmation or receipt goes there, but I know to check because I'm expecting it.

      I literally never check my Gmail SPAM just because.

      Even so, it's not too bad, I assume the vast majority of true spam doesn't even hit that folder.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    7. Re:If all you do about it is filter ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't spam in gmail, it's false positives, which I get weekly. So I have to check the spam folder anyway, frequently, just to make sure I am not missing anything.

    8. Re: If all you do about it is filter ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Similar tactics haven't stopped illegal drug trade whatsoever.

      The entire concept of the mass decentralized network that is the INTERNET alongside basic concepts of currency and commerce allows spam to exist. It's percentage increase in terms of global bandwidth has more to do with technological efficiency and complex economical factors than anything even remotely close to what you claim.

      To simplify another way: You forget that the digital world is merely an extension of the real world. If spammers can figure out technical solutions to get paid, why do you assume they won't find human solutions offline?

    9. Re:If all you do about it is filter ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Tracking the money comes up every year at the MIT spam conference, or used to. It doesn't work. The cost of prosecution is so high, the international abuse from outlaw countries like Nigeria and Estonia are so high, and the "legitimate" spam vendors are such a part of modern business and advertising that laws will not be passed and vendors lobby to protect their spam business. Even the EFF got corrupted and sold out, when Jerry Berman took over the EFF and sold their soul to sign off on the CANSPAM act.

      Actually, there is one spam filter that has proven 100% effective, with individual training for individual spam recipients properly implemented. It is called CRM114, it's, free software, GPL licensed, and available at http://crm114.sourceforge.net/ . It's Markovian neural net based rather than static Bayesian rules like most filters, does not predefine rules, and is normally individually trained for each user with no visibility for spammers to tune their messages.

    10. Re:If all you do about it is filter ... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I use rspamd, which simply rejects very spammy looking emails, greylists ones that are quite spammy, and sticks borderline ones in my spam folder. I get an average of about 5 emails in my spam filter each day. It's well under the threshold where I can easily check it every day (though I typically check it every few days).

      I don't think that the filters are making things worse: looking in my logs, I'm rejecting quite a lot of spam that appears to be from botnets. One of my colleagues studies spam and has a few relevant observations.

      The first is that spam is intentionally stupid looking. Scammers are not looking for intelligent people to scam, they're looking for people who will see an email from Banc ov Amerika and think that it's a legitimate mail. Those people are a lot easier to scam.

      The second is that most spammer actually aren't making money from it. The barriers to entry for spamming are so low that a lot of people buy databases of emails and access to botnets and try sending spam. The people selling the databases and botnets make money, but the spammers don't. That means that treating it as a simple economic problem, as the OP suggested, simply doesn't work.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    11. Re:If all you do about it is filter ... by KiloByte · · Score: 2

      I miss a real email about once a year from SPAM filters in Gmail, and it's usually a shady email. I literally never check my Gmail SPAM just because.

      Seriously?

      Let's take Linus, he somehow still uses Gmail. I'm too small a fry to send him pull requests, but I did make an April first one. (The mail archive web display mangles UTF-8 but it's correct in the actual mail, pretty vital for this actual patch set.). See Linus' complaint. Here we have correspondence from someone who had just participated in a two-way thread with Linus (something about modversions), the mail is GPG signed by a key one indirect node away, the mail being a well-formed pull request of the kind he gets tons of every day.

      How do you get a MORE valid mail for this particular recipient? (Aside of runes support in the tty layer not being an entirely reasonable feature.)

      I hear him complain about having to fish a pull request out of Gmail's "spam" roughly monthly, and that's only cases when he bothers to mention this and I happen to read that particular response (reading the entirety of LKML is not humanly possible).

      Thus, Gmail is so bad in the false positive department that I don't think it's usable. Even worse, when it discards a mail this way, it doesn't notify the sender the way any sane server is supposed to!

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    12. Re:If all you do about it is filter ... by coofercat · · Score: 1

      Email needs to become 'opt in' (like your social media mail and instant messenger accounts). Then all you'll see is 'connection requests' from a Nigerian Prince, and not the actual spam. If you connect, then sure you'll get the spam otherwise you won't. The 'value' to Prince Mohammed of scatter-gunning connection requests around the world is going to be a lot less than sending actual content "just in case someone clicks on it". It'll still happen of course, but I suspect a lot less than you get spam emails today.

      In order for this to be possible, we need to dump SMTP and use something else. Using some sort of REST solution would at least mean that servers can cert-validate clients (if they want to), and so then users can be sure where their email is actually coming from, and users or admins can block known low-quality domains or senders. Also, we'll be able to finally stop uuencoding binaries to make 30% larger ascii to transfer it around the world.

    13. Re:If all you do about it is filter ... by houghi · · Score: 2

      I do the same. It adds several layers of security.
      1) You will know that an email is from your bank or from a spammer. Some spam mails are really good looking and almost fool me.
      2) You will know if your data has been compromised. If I start getting mails from something like CompanyName.com@example.net that means they have either sold the data, or they have been hacked.
      3) It is easy to filter. I can filter on the "TO:' for companies and on the FROM: for know addresses. All the rest is very easy and fast to look through and is most likely spam.

      Add some spammy addresses (e.g. travel2018@example.net) for specific things and you done. The travel I just delete after a year of travel, so hotels and restaurants can spam me, but I will not know and I know I do not need to look for the 'I do not want your spam' button 7 pages down for each place I go to.

      To be fair, except for the spammy addresses, I only had an issue with eBay where I probably forgot to deselect the spamming option once and I started to receive spam from people where I bought something from. So that address is gone.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    14. Re:If all you do about it is filter ... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Personally I'm a fan of a Lex Talionis type solution, where for every piece of Spam (unsolicted commercial email) sent, the sender must recieve (eat) one 'piece' of Spam (spiced ham). In one sitting. I'm happy for piece to be set at 1g. Small time offenders should survive that. And be suitable chastened.

      No. One bite per spam, which means at least 2.5g.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:If all you do about it is filter ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check your spam folder in gmail and see what's in there.

      Nope. I don't even check my gmail inbox. It is a black hole. You see, most free mail providers leave your mail alone, the only "cost" being ads in the webmail interface. But Google reads gmail in order to collect advertising keywords. I don't want a mailbox that is being snooped on by commercial actors. So I don't use it at all. Want to reach me? Use one of several mailboxes that only I read. Nobody else. (Well, perhaps the NSA takes a look, but no normal people or businesses).

      I did not ask for gmail - it was provided alongside android. But with Google reading it, the only time I use gmail is for communicating with Google. Passwd resets and such. People look me up on gmail and believe it is useful - their loss. I will never set up forwarding, as I won't have mail running through a commercial spy system.

    16. Re:If all you do about it is filter ... by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      The economic problem is actually worse than you stated: Spammers send spam email even if they don't make money off of it. Let us divide spam into two kinds: advertising, and malware.

      Advertisers never knew how effective their ads were. (The web was supposed to fix that by giving them tons of analytics, but it never really worked out the way they hoped.) So even if spam advertising is economically negative for them, they have no way to know that and they send it anyway. So penalizing them economically would be difficult.

      Malware spam is often sent using someone else's resources, so making it uneconomical won't help here. The economic impact will be on the victim who had their computer systems compromised. That might lead them to do better security, but since an insecure system is already an outrageously expensive gamble, it doesn't seem like it will motivate anyone to secure their systems better. And many of the malware spammers do this for fun or vengeance rather than profit, so economics is ineffective on them even if you could make it pricier for them.

    17. Re:If all you do about it is filter ... by jon3k · · Score: 1

      Thus, Gmail is so bad in the false positive department that I don't think it's usable. Even worse, when it discards a mail this way, it doesn't notify the sender the way any sane server is supposed to!

      I've been using gmail since beta, I don't think I've ever had a false positive. Just thought I'd add another anecdotal datapoint.

    18. Re:If all you do about it is filter ... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Running your own domain isn't even needed, just register a few free mail addresses with different freemail providers. That way you also get to learn what freemail providers sell your address to which spammers.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    19. Re:If all you do about it is filter ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only way to stop spam is to stop them from getting paid.

      I run the email and phone systems at work. Spam and cold calls get your company's domain and phone numbers blackholed.

      Best solution I've ever found.

    20. Re:If all you do about it is filter ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for every piece of Spam (unsolicted commercial email) sent, the sender must recieve (eat) one 'piece' of Spam (spiced ham)

      SPAM® has no spice in it. The idea that the name is a portmanteau of "spiced" and "ham" is laughable.

    21. Re:If all you do about it is filter ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your mail server probably isn't configured correctly. If gmail detects inconsistencies in the headers it usually flags an email as spam assuming it's from a half assed throwaway spam mail server. Gmail filters work for 99.9% people and they work incredibly well.

      I occasionally check my spam folder and there's a false positive or two. But they're always automated junk I signed up for with some phrasing that made it look extra spammy. The world has yet to fall apart and spam email is basically a non-issue for me.

    22. Re:If all you do about it is filter ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the another 40 years the problem will be astronomically worse. In fact if all we do is keep trying to filter out spam, the problem will almost certainly be unbeatable within another decade. The spammers know that they are slowly winning the war against the filters as the signal:noise ratio keeps coming down ever so slightly as they get a little more spam through with each iteration. They know that the complement to this is that more legitimate communication ends up getting automatically junked by the same filters, which means that eventually the filters stop being useful.

      The only way to end this problem going forward is to finally look at spam for what it is. Spam is an economic problem. Spammers don't send you spam to make you mad or to waste your time. Spammers send you spam to make money, plain and simple. The only way to end it is to stop them from making money on it. You can't legislate it away by throwing arbitrary penalties at spammers - we've even heard of spammers being murdered on the street and it didn't stop more spammers from coming up to take their place. The only way to stop spam is to stop them from getting paid.

      This has been shown effective before. We need to track down how they are getting paid - it most often is based on click-throughs so we need to find who owns the spamvertised domain - and interfere with it. If the money doesn't get to the spammer, they no longer have a reason to send spam.

      Everything else is a waste of time, money, storage, more money, and more time.

      It is not on the end user to fix the spam problem anymore. The groups running email, including the data centers handling STMP, the web mail players, even those managing the central network need to provide a solution. The ONLY think we can do is filter and ignore. Unsubscribing just flags the email as valid. Complaining to the company? Obviously worthless. I've never actually bought anything from spam and know no one who has. Hell, we still get snail mail spam too and that is completely under the control of the USPS in the US. What exactly can be done about that? I get unsolicited ads from every grocery store in the area. Do I not buy food anymore? I get 5+ State Farm letters a month from random agents and I have never done business with State Farm nor will I but that doesn't stop them.

      Like every systemic problems, it needs to be addressed as the infrastructure level or the fix is useless.

    23. Re:If all you do about it is filter ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Several years ago, my previous ISP would provide a free visitor's book, which I had set to require my permission before it would post. Unfortunately, a spammer figured out how to bypass it and post anyway. It wasn't difficult; I figured how they did it in a few minutes. I reported it to the ISP help desk, but they really didn't care.

      So, several of us in the chat group for self-help banded together and did something about it. Every time I received one of those spam messages, I would find the web page for the product they were advertising, trace it back to their ISP and report them as spammers to the ISP's abuse email address. I had about a 95% success rate getting the advertisers booted from their ISPs.

      Some of the 'advertisers' were real businesses. I would imagine they were very upset when they learned that their websites were deleted because the person that they paid to promote the website had violated the ISP terms of service. They probably also demanded a refund and a few other things from their 'vendor'.

      After about 3 months of that, the spamming stopped completely.

    24. Re:If all you do about it is filter ... by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Maybe a filter for [git pull] would solve that?

      It's formatted as a list message, the whole point of the square bracket list title is for the sake of mail filters.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    25. Re:If all you do about it is filter ... by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      So even if spam advertising is economically negative for them, they have no way to know that and they send it anyway.

      This is one of two pillars of my "spam will never end" philosophy. The other, related issue, is that one person can be responsible for millions of pieces of spam. Even if it doesn't work, and even if the person responsible figures that out, it's entirely possible that someone else sees that spam and thinks "Hey, they wouldn't be doing it if it didn't work!"

      And so it goes on and on. As long as a spammer has customers paying them to spam, they're going to spam. Whether or not the customers are repeat ones doesn't matter, as long as there's a steady supply of them.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    26. Re:If all you do about it is filter ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try having an email address for a common name with any of the huge webmail providers (ex: joe.smith@...). The spammers take a massive list of common first/last names and slam them together to see if anything hits.

      I had this problem with Yahoo. I was one of the early adopters and managed to get my own (very common) first.last@yahoo. I was diligent to always use site-specific aliases any time I signed up for anything. Then one day, boom... it was like I signed up on a "please spam me" list.

    27. Re:If all you do about it is filter ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      gmail blocks legitimate email all the time. If you're not a big guy, you can't even use their tools to find out what's going on.

      Gmail is not standards compliant. It's a nightmare.

    28. Re:If all you do about it is filter ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use violence. Another spammer in a wheelchair, another with "spammer" tattoed across the face . . .

    29. Re:If all you do about it is filter ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree the solution is economic in nature but the spammers ... that well is most-often dry.

      I would charge $ for guaranteed delivery and phone calls. Take junk mail ... I don't like it but with little effort to stop, it is a few pieces per day and it never interrupts a meal.

      So I would like email and phone protocols whereby one safe-lists some and charges all others. Alternative systems include instant-chargeback/revenge for telemarketing calls at the touch of a button. *86 - you pay me, bitch.

      Anybody not prepared to risk a $1 chargeback for ringing my phone, isn't worth listening to.

      So I would literally disregard the bad actors and try to revert from the notion of free calls/texts/emails (unless on an approved list).

      All systems must have private action built in (something the CANSPAM act was literally designed to prevent).

  2. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  3. Incredibly annoying by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I really hate those unsolicited telegrams. I don't want or need any of your dag blum miracle liniment, consarn it!

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  4. Time for death penalty for spammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It time we take this seriously with serious consequences.

    60 of e-mail is spam, so that 60% wasted bandwidth and 60% wasted power on the server, and all the routers and infrastructure. An utterly disgusting waste of resources that the ones responsible for needs to be severely punished over.

  5. Viral Marketing by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

    I wonder what the impact of spam has been to Spam (The trademarked processed meat product). Would the company still be in business if its name wasn't mentioned millions of times a day because of something completely unrelated?

    1. Re:Viral Marketing by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2

      Apparently, Spam is really popular in Hawaii.

      I think it's one of those products like fruitcake, which everyone claims to hate, but obviously some people actually like it because it's still around. So, I think plenty of people eat it, but perhaps don't talk about it. Or more to the point, probably not so much in circles techies run in, which are perhaps more of an "avocado toast" crowd.

      Statistics from the 1990s say that 3.8 cans of Spam are consumed every second in the United States, totaling nearly 122 million cans annually. It became part of the diet of almost 30% of American households, perceived differently in various regions of the country. It is also sometimes associated with economic hardship because of its relatively low cost.

      Generally speaking, I think Spam would have done fine, even without the e-mail-related moniker.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    2. Re:Viral Marketing by Daralantan · · Score: 1

      I was just about to post a comment about the meat Spam, rather than spam mail. A friend of mine first got on the internet in the early 90's... what's the first thing he searched and looked up a website for? Spam. The "delicious meat."

    3. Re: Viral Marketing by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      IMO it's just a matter of cooking it right. Eating it raw is a bad idea but on the flip side spam musubi tastes really good.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Viral Marketing by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      122 million cans is a lot... but not really when you consider there are what, about 370million people in the US (not sure if that number is still accurate but I'll use it).

      So one can per 3 people a year. 12oz in a can. So the average person consumes 4oz of spam a year. Or one third of an ounce a month. That's a really small amount- and it's probably offset by Hawaii where it is consumed at a higher rate, and by certain poor communities.

      It's probably also purchased as a gag on a semi-regular basis. Every year in the office white elephant gift exchange, a multipack of spam is in there somewhere. That spam is almost certainly never consumed. I've heard of Spam sculpture competitions. I guarantee that spam never gets consumed. I wouldn't be surprised if less than half of all spam sold isn't actually eaten.

      I read a statistic once (and again, not sure how accurate I remember the statistic), but something like less than 10% of paperclips are used for their intended purpose (holding paper together). Spam might be another "Paper-clip" product.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    5. Re:Viral Marketing by cjellibebi · · Score: 1

      IIRC, back in the '90s, Hormel Foods (the company that made Spam) tried to sue a few websites that referred to junk mail as Spam or used Spam in such a context. Presumably, they were worried that this would give their product/brand a negative association. Unfortunately, like many of their contemporaries, they did not quite 'get' Internet-Culture. Perhaps this explains why many e-mail programs now refer to it as "Junk-Mail" instead of "Spam". I'm wondering if anyone did a study to see if Spam's association with junk e-mails had a positive or negative impact on the canned meat.

    6. Re:Viral Marketing by barakn · · Score: 1

      Spam musubi is basically sushi with spam. It's delicious.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    7. Re:Viral Marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The government substitute for meat"

      Spam!
      It's pink and it's oval
      Spam!
      I buy it at the Mobil
      Spam!
      It's made in Chernobyl
      Spam

    8. Re:Viral Marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in the 1980's I was calling it "persistant unsolicited commercial email" or PUCE
      Too bad it didn't catch on.

      Nils K. Hammer

    9. Re:Viral Marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently, Spam is really popular in Hawaii.

      It pairs well with pineapple.

      I think it's one of those products like fruitcake, which everyone claims to hate, but obviously some people actually like it because it's still around. So, I think plenty of people eat it, but perhaps don't talk about it. Or more to the point, probably not so much in circles techies run in, which are perhaps more of an "avocado toast" crowd.

      I imagine adding SPAM® would greatly improve avocado toast.

    10. Re:Viral Marketing by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      The problem with your analogy to fruitcake is that there's a spectrum between "slow smoked ham" and "processed pig meat in a can", and there's likewise a spectrum between "moist gingerbread with homemade dried fruit reconstituted with rum" and "dense, dry cake with nasty bitter candied fruit rinds in it".

      My mom makes an absolutely unbelievable fruitcake. Unfortunately, the cultural perception of fruitcake is more akin to spam than a nice smoked ham.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  6. Celebrating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do not think that word means what you think it means.

  7. Paper junk mail is very lucrative for the Post Off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's why there's still so much of it, even despite its environmental impact.

  8. Careful what you wish for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The big companies listened to your distaste for being offered products you do not need.
    Solution:
    find out what you do need by invading privacy tracking and spying

  9. Re:Paper junk mail is very lucrative for the Post by gravewax · · Score: 2

    luckily where I live a "NO JUNK MAIL" sign on the mailbox blocks 99% of that. once that filter fell off for about a week and I was honestly shocked at how much shit really is stuffed into mailboxes.

  10. Re:Paper junk mail is very lucrative for the Post by whoever57 · · Score: 1

    You have to go to your post office and tell them that you consider the catalogs "sexually provocative" and, after they finish laughing at you, point them to Rowan v. Post Office Dept., under which they have to accept your judgment about the catalogs and may not substitute their own opinion.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  11. Re:Paper junk mail is very lucrative for the Post by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Funny

    I could never stop junk mail coming into my mailbox. So I decided to valorize it instead: years ago, I gave my adress to many stores, and in short order, I started receiving a lot of junk mail. As in, a LOT of junk mail.

    What do I do with all that junk mail you ask? I make briquettes to throw in the fire in the winter. 3/4th of my heating needs are taken care of by that free fuel, delivered for free right on my doorstep. In the summer, I store the briquettes, and if I have too many of them, I sell them to the local recycler, who pays a token sum for it by the ton and burns it in our local power plant.

    Making the briquette is a bit of a pain, even with the briquette machine, and they require sweeping the chimney more often because burning glossy paper fouls it up real fast. Also, burning the chemicals contained in the paper and in the ink isn't terribly green. But it results in real savings in heating fuel.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  12. Re:How they get paid... by wolfheart111 · · Score: 0

    CPA... WTF r u doing writing about this.

    --
    [($)]
  13. Godzilla Threshold by mentil · · Score: 1

    Marketer Gary Thuerk composed an email selling his company's newest computers and sent it to 400 users on ARPANET

    Marketers, just like Lawyers, giant radioactive lizards, and Old Ones, are best left deep in the ocean, unless you really need them.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Godzilla Threshold by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      But unlike lawyers, great radioactive lizards and old ones, marketeers have no reason to exist.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  14. Re:How they get paid... by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    Sorry :/

    --
    [($)]
  15. Green card lottery spam by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 3, Informative

    I am not one of the privileged few who was on ARPANET in 1978: I was at high school and in the wrong country.

    I was, however, present for a somewhat later milestone in spam history: the green card lottery spam. On 12 April 2994, a pair of exceptionally unscrupulous lawyers spammed every newsgroup on Usenet with ads for (utterly unnecessary and very expensive) assistance in entering a lottery for USA green card (permanent residence.) This generated a great deal of internet hatred.

    https://www.wired.com/1999/04/...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    1. Re:Green card lottery spam by mccalli · · Score: 1

      They also spammed email too. However I'd never encountered spam at the time, and was wondering why everyone else seemed to be getting this and not me. Was I not good enough, was I not wanted...? Incredibly different times.

    2. Re:Green card lottery spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Me, too. Martha Siegel of Canter&Siegel wrote rude words about several of us from MIT for tracking them down and getting them kicked off of various ISP's for their abuse. They led to the change in user contracts that explicitly forbade spam.

      They were followed by the Scientologiests, who tried to "rmgroup" alt.religion.scientology to hide their cult secrets, then spammed it with messages from their critics, then eventually just took to flat-out spam. 3000 messages a night, 30 KBytes each to avoid NNTP filtering, using long distance dial-up lines to modems hosted all over the country and paid with cash. That went on for fix months, taking up about half a Terabyte of space, and getting a lot of Usenet providers to drop the newsgroup or set the retention *really short*. It finally stopped when one of the ISP's let slip the phone number being used for the spam, and the spammer's address got published.

      But *no one* was able to get any law enforcement agency to help with subpoenas or even guidance to prosecute these bozos. I tried, even going to the Secret Service on the grounds that it was electronic fraud. They were intrigued, but unwilling to pursue it because it did not involve at least $30,000 in damages to any one party.

    3. Re:Green card lottery spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      On 12 April 2994, a pair of exceptionally unscrupulous lawyers spammed every newsgroup on Usenet with ads for (utterly unnecessary and very expensive) assistance in entering a lottery for time travel .

      FTFY

    4. Re:Green card lottery spam by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      In the Magic: the Gathering newsgroup, there was a lot of joking around, since Magic cards were generally black, white, red, blue, or green. It took a while for me to figure what had happened, since the spam message had been canceled by the time I logged in.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  16. I almost dont mind... by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    If some losers need to spam to make a dollar... scraping bottom of the barrel.

    --
    [($)]
  17. INCREASE YOUR TONER CARTRIDGE SIZE, NATURALLY! by guacamole · · Score: 5, Funny

    This message is not spam.

    1. Re:INCREASE YOUR TONER CARTRIDGE SIZE, NATURALLY! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      If you do not wish to receive our emails, click this link and we will add you to our list of known, active email addresses and increase the rate of spam.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  18. Spam may be 40 years old but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...META-SPAM is a modern invention!

    Dear all,

    as you may have noticed today you are receiving
    some SPAM messages.

    You are kindly asked to not respond to them.
    Our office is working hard to stop them
    and prevent their spread.

    In case you already answered to those email,
    we kindly ask you to immediately change
    your account password.

    Sincerely,
    IT Services

    From http://www.email-anti-patterns.com/#/p-metaspam

  19. Let's Stop SMTP by Drakster · · Score: 1

    I feel that the real problem that allows spam to thrive is due to the horrible protocol that's used. Sure, with improvements like SPF, DKIM, and the like, it's a lot better, however I feel we need to move to a more modern protocol.

    Anything with a form of proof of work should cut down spam drastically. After users have confirmed legitimate mail from that MTA, allow an exception to be made, preventing the proof of work, or at least a more intensive version.

    1. Re:Let's Stop SMTP by ale2011 · · Score: 1

      Before specifying how users would be supposed to confirm legitimacy, it is de rigueur to check the method against a number of classic anti-spam proposals.

  20. Re: Paper junk mail is very lucrative for the Post by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 1

    I have a fireplace insert for heating. it's not an open fire - no smoke, no cancer. For cooking, I have an electric stove. And for hot water, I use my regular heating fuel boiler. That's why I said burning the paper briquettes only covers 3/4th of my heating needs.

    But thanks for immediately assuming I'm a dumbass...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  21. It's not the song that give it the name by Laxator2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is the credits at the end.

    Just watch the credits roll and you see the word "Spam" inserted everywhere.
    Just like the junk messages littering you inbox, interspersed with the real messages.

    Written and spam performed by:

    Spam Terry Jones

    Michael Spam Palin

    John Spam John Spam
    John Spam Cleese

    Graham Spam Spam
    Spam Chapman

    etc..

  22. 40 years of spam.. by thePsychologist · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...and 40 years of users clicking on spam. When will they learn?

    --
    "What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." Ralph Waldo Emerson
  23. Wasn't spam originally NNTP? by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 2

    I thought the original SPAM was cross-posted News (NNTP) postings. Wasn't it only later applied to emails?

    I would appreciate the input of a neckbeard here.

    --
    Take off every 'sig' !!
    1. Re:Wasn't spam originally NNTP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Usenet was started in 1980. The first well known Usenet spam was posted in 1994 (the Green Card Lottery). The email referenced by the BBC was sent in 1978, well before the infamous first Usenet spam.

    2. Re:Wasn't spam originally NNTP? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The authors of the first Usenet spam were lawyers, disbarred in multiple states for fraud against their clients. They also tried to start a business selling spam services to others, which had a short profitable period until their level of fraud and abuse against their network providers and their own clients became clear.

      Some businesses engage in spam accidentally, because they are sold advertising services and don't understand the idea that "opt-in" email is accepted while "opt-out" is almost always unwanted, The vast majority, however, is abusive fraud. It remains a profound burden on every email system in the world, even those with good spam filtering, because there is a measurable cost of the filtering that generally far exceeds that for legitimate services.

    3. Re:Wasn't spam originally NNTP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That may be the case, but this is the anniversary of spam email. Regardless of the form of the first spam, the first spam email was definitely email.

  24. Re:Paper junk mail is very lucrative for the Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's why there's still so much of it, even despite its environmental impact.

    Right. Because it is the Post Off who decides if their clients will use their services or not, of course.

  25. Re:Paper junk mail is very lucrative for the Post by Buchenskjoll · · Score: 5, Funny

    I do the same with spam emails. I print them out and make briquettes. I saves me loads of money.

    --
    -- Make America hate again!
  26. Re: Paper junk mail is very lucrative for the Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're OK. But people who use wood burning stoves as their primary heat source have been warned. Apparently, for many of these stoves, they allow teeny tiny microscopic particles to escape and get into lungs.

  27. Spam the "Meat" by tylerchill · · Score: 1

    In WWII Britain, Spam, which is essentially pig heads run through a grinder, was shipped by the ton to feed American troops. At war's end the Americans left but all the surplus Spam remained. As Britain recovered this lingering pink reminder of the American occupation showed up in markets and menus everywhere. The Monty Python skit was a play on that.

    1. Re:Spam the "Meat" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      reminder of the American occupation

      Remind us again when the United States occupied Britain?

    2. Re:Spam the "Meat" by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Mostly in 1943 and 1944 (or so the jokes went).

      We also supplied the Soviets with a whole lot of Spam

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  28. Lesser known 10 year anniversary by CODiNE · · Score: 1

    When my buddy insisted DKIM would eliminate SPAM and I just wasn't smart enough to understand why. I'd email him but his inbox is full again so...

    Hey Shawn! You're STILL WRONG!

    --
    Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    1. Re:Lesser known 10 year anniversary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah.. I get a lot of DKIM-signed spam.

      Domains and virtual servers are cheap.

  29. 200 million messages a month, 90-92% spam by cj9er · · Score: 1

    This was the case at one company that I worked and ran their Postfix servers that handled the Internet traffic. It was pretty nuts...

  30. I was first to use the word spam by notthepainter · · Score: 1
    https://it.slashdot.org/commen... - posted that 10 years ago...

    Nov 23, 1987 - 1st documented use of the word "spam" to describe unwanted electronic correspondence.

  31. And we still run into the problem by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Ads are still a problem of the net. Yes, I said ads. Because what the fuck is spam other than that? Whether the junk litters your inbox or your browser real estate, what exactly is the difference?

    A spam filter and an ad filter are essentially doing the same, getting rid of unwanted junk nobody asked for.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:And we still run into the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real ads would be okay, say, a 30k image and one or 2 k of text, off to the side, not evil attack robots that crash my ancient browser.
      Back when Star Trek was new they had a measured small amount of TV ads that actually improved the art by pausing at important moments..

      I think I saw and clicked on one real ad in the last several months. I might have liked the product but the ad was too badly written.

      Nils

  32. Re:Paper junk mail is very lucrative for the Post by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    So then they will route all the catalogs to me? Sweet!

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  33. Spam spam spam spam spam, get it? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    It's not called spam because they kept being offered spam. It's called spam because they kept repeating the word spam.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Spam spam spam spam spam, get it? by RandomFactor · · Score: 1

      Came for the usual spam solutions. Not really disappointed

      It's old, but it still applies pretty universally:

      https://craphound.com/spamsolu...

      --
      --- Mercutio was right.
  34. Re:Paper junk mail is very lucrative for the Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    god I love /.

  35. 40 years of spam... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work for BigBlue...the amount of spam(corporate spam) that I receive daily is by way higher than the spam I had in my personal yahoo mailbox in 2001.