Getcher targets straight, man! There may be good reasons for harassing Bill Simon, and there certainly are for harassing the economically clueless non-defender of our civil liberties and precious bodily fluids Gray Davis, but the spammer we all loved to hate was Bill Jones See Slashdot Story.
It's fun to use naming conventions that mean things, but that doesn't scale well to thousands of machines unless there's some inherent structure like geographical distribution, which seldom applies in a big room full of servers. Give Up! Give them boring names - and keep them in a database. Since you've got operating systems that are picky about short names, name them all something like x000001, x000002, etc. If you can get away with it, structure the names to resemble the IP addresses, so x127224 is xxx.yyy.127.224, or use some other logical structure, like the row/column somebody else suggested.
If you need to have structure around them, they can also be x127224.cust1.example.net or x127224.sfo.example.net, but you'll have a relational database of some sort keeping track of machine name, IP address, hardware model, serial number, amount of RAM, disk, etc., location in the room, and what users are on it.
You could set up the MP3 file to play the touchtones. If you do, you should probably add a few seconds' pause at the beginning, since you'll need to get the iPod headset to the phone headset after playing with the buttons.
I'm not blindly assuming that they get fixed by magic - the free market means us voluntarily getting together and kicking their asses if they don't clean up their act, and the targets individually have the incentive to clean up not only to be cooperative but because they won't be able to get to the outside world otherwise and their local competitors will.
Government intervention usually isn't helpful for that kind of thing - to the extent that they have a clue at all, they usually make some relatively uninformed decision, and then the spammers find a way around it. It's bad enough when they're dealing with issues that they do have personal experience with, and worse when they're dealing with something complex that's outside their individual expertise. The long-ago-proposed S.1618 bill was that way - it was primarily useful because any message that references it is likely to be spam, so you can filter with it.
Meanwhile, what a Chinese government solution would be more likely to do is limit access for politically incorrect groups (Tibetans, Falun Gong and other religions, etc.) and to strengthen the central control of the couple of big telecom companies.
We don't need the Chinese government to pass some law to make this happen - the free market *can* force them to do so, as the big Chinese ISPs get told "if you want to send mail to the outside world, you'll need to make your users block open email relays" - not told by the government, but by their service providers and by the big email sites in the outside world and the flood of bouncemails they get. And most of them will get the clue, and some of the rest of them, mainly smaller ones, will fail to get the clue and fail to communicate outside and fail at business. Or they'll get trashed by 31337 haX0rz having fun beating them up.
Of course, it *would* help if somebody would translate a bunch of anti-spam configuration information into Chinese and Korean.
It's really sad. China goes to all this work to suppress free speech and free thought for their people by hiring big American companies to build censorship firewalls to limit their access. Does that work? We can't tell, because the flood of spam that they *are* shipping out drowns the real speech by Chinese people, and is encouraging far more sites in the free world to block Chinese email than the Chinese corrupt oppressive government was successful in doing. Open email relays are easily used to forward spam, but are also useful in evading censors. It's really shameful.
Of course, if I wanted to put my Tinfoil Conspiracy Hat on, I'd say it was collusion between the unelected George Bush and the thugs in China's government to prevent cooperation between our democratic-leaning peoples, or some such rot. And if either side wanted to accomplish that, this might be the most effective way to do it. Truth is unfortunately stranger than fiction....
I've been thinking about what I wrote, and another approach to the problem occurred to me. Get the open relays to forward to each other.! Buddy can you spare a subdomain? Take a machine that isn't running a real DNS server, construct a fake one, and delegate a spare subdomain to it. Spread a lot of email addresses from the subdomain around your web pages as harvester bait, and maybe also send them to unsubscribe addresses. Set up the fake DNS server to return an IP address that's a random open relay machine. So the spammer or his open relay will try to send mail to user@fakesubdomain.yourdomain.com, ask you for the IP address of fakesubdomain, and you'll hand him the IP address of an open relay machine. That relay machine will try to forward the mail to user@fakesubdomain.yourdomain.com, ask you for the IP address of fake subdomain, and you'll hand him the IP address of another open relay machine. Can you trick Sendmail into sending them around in an endless loop? Or do you have to just load up all the RBL machines you know? Should you set up a tight little loop so you use resources faster, tying up the machine that's bothering you now and using higher-speed connections, or should you alternate between relays in different countries so you get their ISP's attention by using up their international bandwidth? Or can you trick sendmail into accepting 127.0.0.1 as an address and making and endless loop?
The advantage of this approach is that you're not handling the volume of the spam yourself - you're just handling the DNS services, and you can set your timeouts so a given relay machine only bothers you every week or two. (Or you can give them a short TTL for the first time a given machine sends you spam, so you can give it a quick response with some relay you now and then check out whether it's a known open relay or run your own relay check on it.) If it is a relay, you can report it to the RBL, but meanwhile you can set your real mail server to reject everything from the spammer.
Spam is annoying, but doesn't really deserve the death penalty. A *much* more appropriate traditional punishment is the "pillory" - tie the guy up in public and let the public laugh at him and throw rotten vegetables. The Internet makes it possible to virtualize and democratize this service - you don't even have to be in town to email a rotten tomato to the guy.
There really are real opt-in mailing lists, and some of them are marketing, e.g. I've sometimes checked the "send me more information about your products" boxes at web sites for things I'm interested in, and sometimes they've stayed in business long enough to send me email. My wife's previous company managed web sites and email for businesses that this kind of thing, and she made it clear to them from the beginning that if they started spamming, she'd quit. But they didn't, because they were ethical people, and they were building really good tools for really high prices. Alas, yet another set of stock options turned into wallpaper:-) I do get useful email from Cisco, Nortel, etc., and semi-spam mail from people who give me free faxmail service in return, which is a fair deal.
But 90% of the other"opt-in" mail I get is from liars claiming that either I've opted in to their service or somebody else opted in for me - especially if they have "opt-in" or "marketing" in their domain names or email addresses:-) Many of them say they'll continue sending me opt-in mail unless I opt-out (which at best seldom works, and may confirm to them that my address is correct.) I view this as a direct threat to spam me further, and actionable by any means necessary.
(I've been rereading Vernor Vinge's excellent novel "A Fire Upon The Deep", so I'm motivated to comment "Death to Vermin" about these spammers:-)
If you google for Teergrube (German for "Tar Pit"), you'll find several implementations that happily sit on Port 25 (either on machines that don't run their own SMTP servers, or perhaps are called out by the real sendmail when receiving mail from a known spammer) and answer v...e...r.....y.....s....l....o....w.....l.....y, with lots of delays and perhaps some try-later error messages. The usual application for Teergruben is to place a bunch of spambait addresses out on your web sites for the spammer's harvesting system to find, since any mail addressed to them is obviously spam, and log the senders' machines so you can track them down. The theory is that if somebody's sending out a few mail messages to real people and mistakenly send to you, responding slowly isn't a problem, but if they're trying to send thousands of spams per minute, and each of the N simultaneous outgoing SMTP sessions they can maintain keeps running until it hits one of the thousands of tarpits waiting for them, they'll use up all their capability waiting for tarpits to respond and be unable to bother real people, and thus they DDOS themselves. If they're abusing mail relays, and spreading the load around, that's a bit rougher, but each mail relay can also get bogged down. Also, dialup or open relay IP address that gets caught in the tarpit is one you can add to the blacklists on your real mail server, though you probably don't want to do that for non-dialup machines that aren't running relays, because they may simply have bad users (e.g. AOL has spammers, but also has your mother-in-law, so you don't want to block all mail from AOL.) You may not have a current DUL for Korea, but if you don't expect to get mail from anybody in Korea, or the mail goes to one of your spambait addresses, you can trap them too.
That works nicely if enough people do it, especially if they spread around lots of spambait addresses. But what about an active response - if you receive mail from an open-relay machine (either on the RBL, or one that you test, e.g. yet another Korean school box), you could send it ten simultaineous messages, v...errr....y...s....l...o...w..ly. Not enough to flood it, or kill it permanently, but enough that if it's trying to spam N destinations at a time, it will have some fraction of them tie up a few percent of its incoming SMTP capacity, and therefore quickly block its relay capability.
It's a bit dodgy, and you need to check your ISP's acceptable use policy to make very sure you're not violating it, but it's basically a scale attack which won't harm any systems that have real people sending out real mail, might bother real systems sending out real mailing lists (so obviously don't do this to systems you subscribe to), but will interfere with abused machines being abused by spammers as well as with spammers using their own machines directly.
It wasn't the portal itself - it was the several billion dollars of debt they acquired merging with the Excite portal folks. It didn't help that they also bought Blue Mountain Greeting Cards online business-without-a-business-model for $700M....
If all of those 33 million users were connected at once, they wouldn't be able to have unique IP addresses in the 10.x.x.x address space, which only holds 16 million:-) Fortunately, they probably don't have that many at once, and even if they did, they almost certainly do some sort of tiered connectivity, either with NAT or proxies, that keeps them from needing whole-internal-network-routable IP addresses. I don't know if they do it regionally, or per dial POP (something like 1000-10000 POPs, which could contain all the address space for their local users as well as having some wide-area address space for the whole-company-visible or Internet-visible parts), or by not having more than 16 million modems (the easy approach for most of us:-).
For China and India and in general the rest of the world, the choices are either to get on the stick and do IPv6, or else to use some other tiered-local-addresses-proxy-NAT system. By then it wouldn't be surprising if cheap mobile devices (phones or otherwise) were the big driver, and IPv6 means you just don't need to fix the addressing problem again.
Background: The OSI protocol suites had a wide variety of choices of protocols at different layers in the stack. CLNP (ConnectionLess Network Protocol) was roughly equivalent to IP. GOSIP was the late-1980s US Government OSI Protocol stack, a specific set of protocols from the OSI suites covering Layers 1-7, and looked more like the TCP/IP world than the ISDN/X.25/EuroTelcoBureaucrat world. Padlipsky's "The Elements of Networking Syle" (ISBN 0-13-268111-0) is the classic critique.
The important differences between the OSI protocol stack people and the TCP/IP people weren't at the transport layer - they were mainly the application layer and the availability of working implementations on Unix. Multi-Protocol Routers were becoming available at the time, driven by the widespread use of IPX, the Not-Dead-Yet-ness of Appletalk and XNS, the Routing?-What's-That? bridginess of DEC LAT, and the Hadn't-Taken-Over-The-World-Quite-Yet-ness of IP, so there were routers with CLNP available at costs not substantially different from other multi-protocol routers that also did IP. While the TP4/CLNP stack wasn't much clumsier than TCP/IP, the set of application services was - X.400 was MUCH heavier-weight than SMTP, and FTAM was somewhat more bureaucratic than FTP, VT was more general than Telnet, and 4.2BSD UNIX came with TCP/IP and sockets and such, with well-written relatively-open code that was usable on Vaxen and ported to Suns and other popular computers. If you wanted to write stuff, you could just write stuff.
You've pointed out that IPv4 has DiffServ / TOS bits, but backbone router ISPs don't universally support them. Adopting IPv6 won't change that - it's a policy issue on the part of the ISP. It will make some kinds of features easier to implement, such as giving people private-line-like performance across pre-defined parts of a single carrier's internet, but they could do that today if they wanted, if they could figure out what to charge and how to manage it. Having more address bits makes it easier to design entertaining features, e.g. a chunk of your address space that uses router filters to create private subnets, but the critical issues are ISP policy.
There are ISPs starting to deploy this stuff, primarily driven by the Voice-Over-IP market. For the most part, what matters isn't prioritization on their 10Gbps backbone, where there's plenty of room for everybody - it's prioritization on the T1 line to your building, or in the oversubscribed DSL network to your house. One of the real issues becomes policy at the interfaces between ISPs - Little Local ISPs care about this a lot, but most of the Tier 1 players have the view that "Why should I provide special support for the connection between me and my competitors - I'd rather sell you the prioritized connections on your whole network where I can manage it all (and get all the money, and provide realistic guarantees of service quality, and get all the money)."
Viruses - for theft prevention
on
iWarez
·
· Score: 2
So infest the demo PCs with viruses, if the downloaders haven't done it to themselves already. Do something to make sure the store pc doesn't crash.
Sure, you could fit 4 206-mhz strongarms in a small space, but it's likely to be much cheaper and easier to use one 800-MHZ box, or one 1600-MHz box. The new Crusoe platform may be more interesting, if it actually gets built.
So the spammer, who lives somewhere in the world, abuses a Korean open relay to send you spam, which uses a Taiwanese web page to pay a Visa account at a Thai bank which is owned by a Panamanian corporation, which is really controlled by some loser in Florida. If you can track down the string of transactions and find the real owner, maybe you can invoke whatever hypothetical law Florida might pass getting you $200 plus court costs. But to prove this, you not only have to find enough evidence to track down the owner, you've got to get high enough quality evidence to convince the court in Florida that you're correct. That probably means that you'll need to have the court in Florida subpoena at least the Taiwanese web server, Thai bank, and Panamanian corporation, all of which aren't in some Florida small claims court's jurisdiction so they'll laugh at you. You'll need a real court instead, and they'll also argue lack of jurisdiction over the holders of the evidence, and you've got the difficulty of running this from your home in California.
It's probably more effective to use a credit card that's good at refunding complaining customers' money - if the merchant gets hit with a large number of complaints and demands for money back (either "I bought this plan to Make Money Fast and it's just tools for illegal spamming, I want a refund" or "Oops, I mistyped things into his ugly web page again, please refund my $0.99 and I'll pay him the $99.00 for the product later") multiplied by a few thousand could increase the spammer's costs and maybe get you a better trace on where he lives - but non-US banks are much less likely to give you a refund on credit card transactions for things like this.
Email Address Harvesters used to develop spam lists are almost always violations of acceptable use policies at good ISPs. And web spiders that ignore robots.txt prohibitions are also violations of many ISPs' AUPs. You probably could run a web spider on a dialup connection, but it'd be pretty slow - they have to suck down a lot of data to find what they're looking for, unless they can abuse popular search engines to look for addresses (e.g. use Google to look for @, if it'll do that, or dredge the whois registries to find all the names in.com and then use Google to look for name1.com, name2.com, etc. The web is really pretty big, and even the text parts are almost certainly growing at faster than 56kbps.
Richard - I didn't say that the alternate root proponents are scammers, I said that ICANN is. My comment about "kooks" is, of course, strongly influenced by the bad craziness of a few years ago:-) But I didn't say all of you were kooks, just that I've never been that impressed with most of the alternate root projects, though apparently some people have been quite successful in getting some of the cable modem companies and one or two big ISPs to use their namespaces.
Besides, if there's an ICANN board member using ORSC, it's probably just that non-conformist Karl, who thinks that being actually elected by the user public should somehow allow him onto a board of elite appointees...
You can implement it in software - set up mail filters so mail from bogus domains gets bounced. if you don't want to do it yourself (either to avoid the configuration and maintenance, or to get the spam tossed on your server instead of after downloading), find an ISP or email filtering/forwarding service that will. Pobox.com does a good job of spam-filtering, and a number of ISPs have various aggressive options, and then there are the spamcops and brightmails of the world that run services.
I use pobox.com as a mail forwarding service, so mail to myname@pobox.com gets forwarded to my current ISP. One of their spam handling services is to mark suspected spam with a rating
Subject: [ spam 7.43/10.00 -- pobox.com ] original subject
if it exceeds whatever threshhold you set. They've gotten better - a large amount of my obvious spam gets marked 10.00/10.00, and I've seen so few false positives with that rating that I'm now discarding the 10's automatically. Lower ratings are sometimes wrong, especially for mail that someone's forwarded to a real mailing list I'm on, especially if the mailing list messages have a how-to-unsubscribe footer, but probably 95% of the stuff that's tagged as some kind of spam is spam, and the 10s are all spam.
Also, as an ISP, you usually know addresses at your site that aren't real users (but might be from spambait you've left around), and can safely discard any email messages matching those messages and those IP addresses.
Some spammers are professionals - they've figured out how to get enough responses to continue making money. Sometimes that's Ponzi schemes, sometimes it's porn spam, but often it's selling Spamware Kits to newbie spammers who think that they too can Make Money Fast. Newbie spammers are like the dumber end of script kiddies - they're going to run whatever formulas their spamware kits give them and then be disappointed that they didn't Make Money Fast, unless they actually happened to do so, but they're not doing any scientific measurement about what's going on. The important thing for them is to make their scam fail and hope they drop out, disappointed that their several-hundred-dollar investment flopped. Ideally, it's nice to also scare them off and have their ISP charge them a hefty Throwing-Spammers-Out fee and inflated lawyers' costs so they go away and never come back again and tell all their remaining friends how bummed they were, but it doesn't matter much.
The harder problems are professional spammers, and spamware kit makers. Professionals do some level of measurement, and busting their numbers is important. If they think they've used up their supply of 42 million email addresses and 14000 open relays, great. If you're doing a fake open relay, you want them to think it's succeeding, so they keep using it instead of stopping, though that may not be very effective if they're doing good measurement (e.g. sending a mixture of test addresses along with spam victims.) But they're especially the ones you want to kill off, hunt down, and feed to wolves.
And then there are the spamware vendors. You want them to *think* their warez work, so they can be completely hosed without knowing it, but if you can get the spammers who buy their product to sue them for selling defective spamware, that'd be fun too:-)
Can you set up your honeypot to detect spamware versions, and post to Usenet alt.make.money.fast and freebie web pages about how terribly disappointed you are that Spambozo 3.2 didn't work for you and was eaten alive by anti-spammers and caused your PC to halt and catch fire, your girlfriend to leave you, and your dog to run away from home? (Surely you can find some way to promote that on a search engine?:-) Some of the products include self-promotion in their email headers, but by now probably most of them have figured out that it's an easy target for filters.
Slashdot Mirror
Getcher targets straight, man! There may be good reasons for harassing Bill Simon, and there certainly are for harassing the economically clueless non-defender of our civil liberties and precious bodily fluids Gray Davis, but the spammer we all loved to hate was Bill Jones See Slashdot Story.
If you need to have structure around them, they can also be x127224.cust1.example.net or x127224.sfo.example.net, but you'll have a relational database of some sort keeping track of machine name, IP address, hardware model, serial number, amount of RAM, disk, etc., location in the room, and what users are on it.
You could set up the MP3 file to play the touchtones. If you do, you should probably add a few seconds' pause at the beginning, since you'll need to get the iPod headset to the phone headset after playing with the buttons.
Government intervention usually isn't helpful for that kind of thing - to the extent that they have a clue at all, they usually make some relatively uninformed decision, and then the spammers find a way around it. It's bad enough when they're dealing with issues that they do have personal experience with, and worse when they're dealing with something complex that's outside their individual expertise. The long-ago-proposed S.1618 bill was that way - it was primarily useful because any message that references it is likely to be spam, so you can filter with it.
Meanwhile, what a Chinese government solution would be more likely to do is limit access for politically incorrect groups (Tibetans, Falun Gong and other religions, etc.) and to strengthen the central control of the couple of big telecom companies.
Of course, it *would* help if somebody would translate a bunch of anti-spam configuration information into Chinese and Korean.
Of course, if I wanted to put my Tinfoil Conspiracy Hat on, I'd say it was collusion between the unelected George Bush and the thugs in China's government to prevent cooperation between our democratic-leaning peoples, or some such rot. And if either side wanted to accomplish that, this might be the most effective way to do it. Truth is unfortunately stranger than fiction....
There are lots of free web-based email servers out there, like yahoo.com. Get an account there to send mail from.
The advantage of this approach is that you're not handling the volume of the spam yourself - you're just handling the DNS services, and you can set your timeouts so a given relay machine only bothers you every week or two. (Or you can give them a short TTL for the first time a given machine sends you spam, so you can give it a quick response with some relay you now and then check out whether it's a known open relay or run your own relay check on it.) If it is a relay, you can report it to the RBL, but meanwhile you can set your real mail server to reject everything from the spammer.
Spam is annoying, but doesn't really deserve the death penalty. A *much* more appropriate traditional punishment is the "pillory" - tie the guy up in public and let the public laugh at him and throw rotten vegetables. The Internet makes it possible to virtualize and democratize this service - you don't even have to be in town to email a rotten tomato to the guy.
But 90% of the other"opt-in" mail I get is from liars claiming that either I've opted in to their service or somebody else opted in for me - especially if they have "opt-in" or "marketing" in their domain names or email addresses :-) Many of them say they'll continue sending me opt-in mail unless I opt-out (which at best seldom works, and may confirm to them that my address is correct.) I view this as a direct threat to spam me further, and actionable by any means necessary.
(I've been rereading Vernor Vinge's excellent novel "A Fire Upon The Deep", so I'm motivated to comment "Death to Vermin" about these spammers :-)
That works nicely if enough people do it, especially if they spread around lots of spambait addresses. But what about an active response - if you receive mail from an open-relay machine (either on the RBL, or one that you test, e.g. yet another Korean school box), you could send it ten simultaineous messages, v...errr....y...s....l...o...w..ly. Not enough to flood it, or kill it permanently, but enough that if it's trying to spam N destinations at a time, it will have some fraction of them tie up a few percent of its incoming SMTP capacity, and therefore quickly block its relay capability.
It's a bit dodgy, and you need to check your ISP's acceptable use policy to make very sure you're not violating it, but it's basically a scale attack which won't harm any systems that have real people sending out real mail, might bother real systems sending out real mailing lists (so obviously don't do this to systems you subscribe to), but will interfere with abused machines being abused by spammers as well as with spammers using their own machines directly.
It wasn't the portal itself - it was the several billion dollars of debt they acquired merging with the Excite portal folks. It didn't help that they also bought Blue Mountain Greeting Cards online business-without-a-business-model for $700M....
For China and India and in general the rest of the world, the choices are either to get on the stick and do IPv6, or else to use some other tiered-local-addresses-proxy-NAT system. By then it wouldn't be surprising if cheap mobile devices (phones or otherwise) were the big driver, and IPv6 means you just don't need to fix the addressing problem again.
The important differences between the OSI protocol stack people and the TCP/IP people weren't at the transport layer - they were mainly the application layer and the availability of working implementations on Unix. Multi-Protocol Routers were becoming available at the time, driven by the widespread use of IPX, the Not-Dead-Yet-ness of Appletalk and XNS, the Routing?-What's-That? bridginess of DEC LAT, and the Hadn't-Taken-Over-The-World-Quite-Yet-ness of IP, so there were routers with CLNP available at costs not substantially different from other multi-protocol routers that also did IP. While the TP4/CLNP stack wasn't much clumsier than TCP/IP, the set of application services was - X.400 was MUCH heavier-weight than SMTP, and FTAM was somewhat more bureaucratic than FTP, VT was more general than Telnet, and 4.2BSD UNIX came with TCP/IP and sockets and such, with well-written relatively-open code that was usable on Vaxen and ported to Suns and other popular computers. If you wanted to write stuff, you could just write stuff.
There are ISPs starting to deploy this stuff, primarily driven by the Voice-Over-IP market. For the most part, what matters isn't prioritization on their 10Gbps backbone, where there's plenty of room for everybody - it's prioritization on the T1 line to your building, or in the oversubscribed DSL network to your house. One of the real issues becomes policy at the interfaces between ISPs - Little Local ISPs care about this a lot, but most of the Tier 1 players have the view that "Why should I provide special support for the connection between me and my competitors - I'd rather sell you the prioritized connections on your whole network where I can manage it all (and get all the money, and provide realistic guarantees of service quality, and get all the money)."
So infest the demo PCs with viruses, if the downloaders haven't done it to themselves already.
Do something to make sure the store pc doesn't crash.
Sure, you could fit 4 206-mhz strongarms in a small space, but it's likely to be much cheaper and easier to use one 800-MHZ box, or one 1600-MHz box. The new Crusoe platform may be more interesting, if it actually gets built.
Methanol? Nah... You want Ethanol-powered fuelcells. "I'll have a Scotch and Water for me and a Vodka and Water for my laptop here"...
It's probably more effective to use a credit card that's good at refunding complaining customers' money - if the merchant gets hit with a large number of complaints and demands for money back (either "I bought this plan to Make Money Fast and it's just tools for illegal spamming, I want a refund" or "Oops, I mistyped things into his ugly web page again, please refund my $0.99 and I'll pay him the $99.00 for the product later") multiplied by a few thousand could increase the spammer's costs and maybe get you a better trace on where he lives - but non-US banks are much less likely to give you a refund on credit card transactions for things like this.
Email Address Harvesters used to develop spam lists are almost always violations of acceptable use policies at good ISPs. And web spiders that ignore robots.txt prohibitions are also violations of many ISPs' AUPs. You probably could run a web spider on a dialup connection, but it'd be pretty slow - they have to suck down a lot of data to find what they're looking for, unless they can abuse popular search engines to look for addresses (e.g. use Google to look for @, if it'll do that, or dredge the whois registries to find all the names in .com and then use Google to look for name1.com, name2.com, etc. The web is really pretty big, and even the text parts are almost certainly growing at faster than 56kbps.
Besides, if there's an ICANN board member using ORSC, it's probably just that non-conformist Karl, who thinks that being actually elected by the user public should somehow allow him onto a board of elite appointees...
I wonder how long the email accounts will last until they're hit by spam, and how they'll handle the problem.
You can implement it in software - set up mail filters so mail from bogus domains gets bounced. if you don't want to do it yourself (either to avoid the configuration and maintenance, or to get the spam tossed on your server instead of after downloading), find an ISP or email filtering/forwarding service that will. Pobox.com does a good job of spam-filtering, and a number of ISPs have various aggressive options, and then there are the spamcops and brightmails of the world that run services.
Subject: [ spam 7.43/10.00 -- pobox.com ] original subject
if it exceeds whatever threshhold you set. They've gotten better - a large amount of my obvious spam gets marked 10.00/10.00, and I've seen so few false positives with that rating that I'm now discarding the 10's automatically. Lower ratings are sometimes wrong, especially for mail that someone's forwarded to a real mailing list I'm on, especially if the mailing list messages have a how-to-unsubscribe footer, but probably 95% of the stuff that's tagged as some kind of spam is spam, and the 10s are all spam.
Also, as an ISP, you usually know addresses at your site that aren't real users (but might be from spambait you've left around), and can safely discard any email messages matching those messages and those IP addresses.
The harder problems are professional spammers, and spamware kit makers. Professionals do some level of measurement, and busting their numbers is important. If they think they've used up their supply of 42 million email addresses and 14000 open relays, great. If you're doing a fake open relay, you want them to think it's succeeding, so they keep using it instead of stopping, though that may not be very effective if they're doing good measurement (e.g. sending a mixture of test addresses along with spam victims.) But they're especially the ones you want to kill off, hunt down, and feed to wolves.
And then there are the spamware vendors. You want them to *think* their warez work, so they can be completely hosed without knowing it, but if you can get the spammers who buy their product to sue them for selling defective spamware, that'd be fun too :-)
Can you set up your honeypot to detect spamware versions, and post to Usenet alt.make.money.fast and freebie web pages about how terribly disappointed you are that Spambozo 3.2 didn't work for you and was eaten alive by anti-spammers and caused your PC to halt and catch fire, your girlfriend to leave you, and your dog to run away from home? (Surely you can find some way to promote that on a search engine?