Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Idaho Tops America's Most-Spammed States

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the utah-loses-out-for-once dept.

Security 97

An anonymous reader writes "MessageLabs unveiled a list of the top US spammed states, with surprising results — the spam capital of the US is Idaho, with 93.8 percent of spam, far exceeding the global spam rate for September 2009 of 86.4 percent. Idaho has jumped 43 spots since 2008 when it was ranked the 44th most spammed state. The difference can be attributed to the resilient and aggressive botnet market as well as a higher volume of global spam that has ensued since the beginning of the credit crisis toward the end of 2008."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Potatoes (0, Offtopic)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#29533535)

Idaho is famous for it's potatoes.

Re:Potatoes (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 5 years ago | (#29533663)

You mean those hillbillies are *still* running Debian 2.2? Wow, they deserve to be hacked! Or spammed...and what not...

Re:Potatoes (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 5 years ago | (#29533801)

How surprising. We've seen lots of symantec articles already here on slashdot already. Please dont spamming us with worthless stuff. It's all for marketing.

Re:Potatoes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29533995)

You must be from Cuntucky, which is famous for its shit grammer.

Re:Potatoes (5, Funny)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#29534269)

Sorry, I forgot the comma.

Idaho is famous, for it's potatoes.

Re:Potatoes (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 5 years ago | (#29534621)

Idaho is famous, for it's potatoes.

Actually, according the Wikipedia article, Idaho is home to the world's largest process-cheese manufacturing plant. I'd link to the article, but when you're famous for process-cheese, it's all downhill from there.

Re:Potatoes (1)

azav (469988) | more than 5 years ago | (#29534901)

It's = it is.

So, you were saying that Idaho is famous, for it is potatoes?

Re:Potatoes (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#29535053)

That's the joke.

Re:Potatoes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29536861)

Whoooooosh!

Re:Potatoes (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 5 years ago | (#29534019)

And spam goes with th'e potatoes.

Re:Potatoes (1)

abbynormal brain (1637419) | more than 5 years ago | (#29534063)

Idaho - The Gem State .... no more .... New marketing: Idaho! The Spam Black Hole State ... [PS to Marcus Spalanke working in the governments "Special Global Communications Dept": Ok, I was wrong. You *really* could re-route most of the worlds spam to Idaho. You won the bet - I've got your $40 ready]

Re:Potatoes (3, Funny)

noundi (1044080) | more than 5 years ago | (#29534219)

Idaho is famous for it's potatoes.

Ever since I began reading Maddox articles I can't think of Idaho without this [thebestpag...iverse.net] in mind.

'Twas I and My Four Hundred Nineteen Potatoes (4, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#29533545)

From: Mr. Dave Fu Wong
Seoul, South Korea.

I will introduce myself I am Mr. Dave Fu Wong, a potato farmer working in a field in South Korea Until now I am the master potato grower of three million hectres to most of the South Korea government kitchens and I have since discovered that most of the potatoes lay dormant in silos with a lot of starch in the silo on further investigation I found out that one particular silo belong to the former president of South Korean MR PARK CHUNG HEE, who ruled south Korean from 1963-1979 and this particular silo has a deposit of grade A lucky golden variety potato with no next of kin. As you know, lucky goldens do not only taste like food from the gods but can be consumed raw like an apple as well as grown anywhere even during the winter.

My proposal is that since I am the master potato growing officer and the potatoes or the silo is dormant and there is no next of kin obviously the potato owner the former president of South Korea has died long time ago, that you should provide an account for the potatoes to be transferred.

The potatoes that are floating in the silo right now are some fifty kilotonnes and this is what I want to transfer to your farm in Idoho for our mutual benefit South Korean post office is so super efficient that a single postage stamp will get these potatoes to you post haste! Unfortunately postage stamp cost fifty Korean currencies or $10,000 American Dollars (apologies for your economy) please send bank account information or cash money order for immediate shipping.

Please if this is okay by you I will advice that you contact me through my direct email address.

Please this transaction should be kept confidential. For your assistance as the account owner we shall share the potatoes on equal basis.

Your reply will be appreciated,

Thank you.

Dave Fu Wong

Re:'Twas I and My Four Hundred Nineteen Potatoes (1)

TheBilgeRat (1629569) | more than 5 years ago | (#29533693)

offtopic?! try funneh!

Re:'Twas I and My Four Hundred Nineteen Potatoes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29538435)

Funny, but you could at least come up with a name more Korean-sounding than Chinese-sounding.

Re:'Twas I and My Four Hundred Nineteen Potatoes (1)

pryoplasm (809342) | more than 5 years ago | (#29539385)

that's kind of funny, since "Unfortunately postage stamp cost fifty Korean currencies or $10,000 American Dollars " is way off.

I think yesterday when I got some korean won out of the atm, the exchange rate was about 1176won to 1USD. 50 won is barely enough to have change for...

usa (0, Troll)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 5 years ago | (#29533547)

The interesting question is NOT why Idaho state spams the most, but WHY usa spams so much. It's not even the largest country in the world; china, india, russia and others go beyound. Still their spam levels are a lot lower.

Noting about "US connectivity" doesn't work either. There's a lot more people with internet connections around the world, but only USA seems to have the problem with so much malware and spam.

Please educate your people, because it affects rest of the world too.

Re:usa (2, Funny)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 5 years ago | (#29533591)

They estimate 5 to 6 million computers are comprimised. So that means that much of the spammers are sending spam to their own comprimised machines.

Re:usa (5, Informative)

Reason58 (775044) | more than 5 years ago | (#29533601)

The interesting question is NOT why Idaho state spams the most, but WHY usa spams so much

This is a list of the most spammed states, meaning the ones which receive the most spam. Not the ones which send the most.

Re:usa (3, Interesting)

timeOday (582209) | more than 5 years ago | (#29533855)

From what I gather it's not the ones that receive the most spam, but rather those for whom spam is the highest proportion of email. Maybe Idahoans receive the same number of spams as everybody else, but simply send and receive fewer legitimate emails. Or maybe there is no systematic difference between states at all, and the results would be entirely different if you looked at any month other than September 09. With just one sample there is no measure of variance and therefore no way to tell whether the result is significant.

Re:usa (1)

azav (469988) | more than 5 years ago | (#29534957)

Ya, the article should really mention what their percentage means. It appears that their "most spammed" percentage means "the percent of mail received that is is spam". The first sentence of the article states "...the spam capital of the US is Idaho with 93.8 percent of spam...". This appears to be blatantly false; it's more likely that 93.8 % of all emails received in Idaho are spam.

Rather poorly written.

Re:usa (1)

IP_Troll (1097511) | more than 5 years ago | (#29533731)

Please educate yourself.

The article says that Idaho is the most SPAMMED, as in it receives the most spam. The article does not say that Idaho sends out the most spam.

Your comment about population is also irrelevant because this is not a measurement of volume of spam. The article measurement is a a percentage of legit mail received by people versus spam, so even the "best state" has a spam rate in the low 80%.

This article is pretty much an advertisement for Symantec products.

Re:usa (1)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#29537471)

"The interesting question is NOT why Idaho state spams the most, but WHY usa spams so much."

One vector: language. People who don't have english as a first language will not fall prey to spam as easily as most native english speakers do. If you recieve mail in a language that you don't use a lot in e-mail communications it is easier to pick out the spam e-mails. If a spam mail contains a virus that turns you into a bot, you will help to propagate the spam by making the sender look reliable(because you probably have the spambot in your addressbook or some sort of friendlist).

If I would recieve an english mail from a friend who doesn't regularly use the english language while mailing me I am more inclined to distrust the message.

Re:usa (1)

Sl4shd0t0rg (810273) | more than 5 years ago | (#29538655)

You realize that you read this article wrong, right? This is about receiving spam not sending. I guess you were blinded by your own anti-American beliefs and couldn't grasp what was being told to you in the article.

Re:usa (1)

paimin (656338) | more than 5 years ago | (#29540433)

Dear foreigner,

RTFA

Sincerely, The USA

Poh Tay Toes (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29533559)

It probably has something to do with how good spam goes with potatoes.

Haha, I have to type in potato to post this.

The potato state has lots of spam (3, Funny)

pm_rat_poison (1295589) | more than 5 years ago | (#29533561)

Now all that's missing for a nutritious lunch is ham and eggs

Re:The potato state has lots of spam (2, Funny)

tool462 (677306) | more than 5 years ago | (#29533691)

That's not got much spam in it.

Re:The potato state has lots of spam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29534335)

I don't want ANY spam! I don't like spam!!

Shhh, dear. Don't cause a fuss. I'll have your spam. I love it. I'm having spam, spam, spam, spam....

Geee, now can I have gratuitous mod points too? Can I? Can I?

BTW, that sounds like breakfast 'round these parts, not lunch.

Obviously... (2, Funny)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 5 years ago | (#29533571)

None of the spammers have been to Idaho.

Re:Obviously... (1)

eskayp (597995) | more than 5 years ago | (#29536175)

You forgot about our legislators.
(Scorethem:3, A Joke)

Re:Obviously... (1)

ChefInnocent (667809) | more than 5 years ago | (#29540245)

I don't think they are aware of the weekly FUD Sen. Risch (and formerly Sen. Craig) sends out, and I'm not sure if it counts as spam (though it should) since politicians likely gave themselves an exception in the CAN-SPAM act.

I never knew... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29533587)

I had no idea that Idaho was full of Jews.

Re:I never knew... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29533661)

Me neither. Fuck Jews and fuck Idaho.

Maybe... (4, Funny)

vertinox (846076) | more than 5 years ago | (#29533605)

Maybe they get lonely out there and spam almost seems like someone cares to send them a message.

Re:Maybe... (4, Funny)

chill (34294) | more than 5 years ago | (#29534153)

When I first moved to Idaho, I commented to a local about the high proportion of pregnant teenage girls in the high school. Her comment was "It's Idaho, there is nothing to do but your neighbor."

Re:Maybe... (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 5 years ago | (#29534555)

When I first moved to Idaho, I commented to a local about the high proportion of pregnant teenage girls in the high school. Her comment was "It's Idaho, there is nothing to do but your neighbor."

Not necessarily a bad way to spend your time, but my understanding is that if you really want to blend in, you'll want to take your neighbour four-wheeling, and then add shooting rodents (prairie dogs?) to mix.

Re:Maybe... (1)

chill (34294) | more than 5 years ago | (#29534695)

No prairie dogs that I saw. Moose, elk, dear, black bear, brown bear, wolves, coyotes, foxes, big horn sheep, turkey and almost every other game animal in the lower 48. And we actually did go four-wheeling with the neighbors. I didn't mention I own a tricked-out Jeep Scrambler... :-)

Re:Maybe... (1)

Jeheto (1414993) | more than 5 years ago | (#29535691)

Well, if you're really native (like my uncles) you reach a compromise. During the summer they spend their weekends shooting ground squirrels while the other drives. Now if only we could mix all three...

Re:Maybe... (1)

otomoton (911331) | more than 5 years ago | (#29539255)

No prairie dogs, but there are whistle-pigs (ground squirrels). When I used to live in Mountain Home (the A.F.B.) there used to be a joke that there was a "pretty girl behind every tree"... that area is a desert, no trees.

Re:Maybe... (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#29534565)

Why did you get so "lucky" as to move to Idaho? I've driven through that state. I saw lots of cows, but not much humans.

Re:Maybe... (2, Interesting)

chill (34294) | more than 5 years ago | (#29534661)

The panhandle, up near Coeur d'Alene, is gorgeous country. If you like outdoor activities: skiing, hiking, boating, hunting, fishing, 4x4ing, etc. it can't be beat short of Alaska.

Re:Maybe... (1)

truckaxle (883149) | more than 5 years ago | (#29534853)

Shhhhh..... That is best kept a secret friend. ;)

Re:Maybe... (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#29535473)

(hops in car) - Idaho Panhandle here I come!

Re:Maybe... (1)

bendodge (998616) | more than 5 years ago | (#29535841)

No, stay away! Ever since some big magazine (Forbes IIRC) published some big article about Idaho being one of the top X places to live, we've had droves of people who drive like they're in California. They even have Obama bumper stickers. (The Idaho liberal is typically a lonely or an institutionalized person. And being in college is being institutionalized.)

Idaho? (1)

Flere Imsaho (786612) | more than 5 years ago | (#29535873)

No, you da ho!

Re:Maybe... (1)

Phoobarnvaz (1030274) | more than 5 years ago | (#29536169)

I'm moving to Idaho in a month...been planning it for several months. All I have to say is that it beats the hell out of Arizona...especially since the #1 pickup line around here is: What a nice tooth you got. Also see t-shirts which say: Teeth...NOT in my town.

Teenage pregnancy can't be that bad...since where I currently live in NW Arizona...it's the state's #1 school system for teenage mothers out of all the districts in the state. That's out of two local high schools & three junior high schools.

Re:Maybe... (1)

ChefInnocent (667809) | more than 5 years ago | (#29540393)

Well, I guess the question then is are you moving to Boise or Athol. In Boise, it's not so bad. In Athol, that pick up line will come in just fine. As for teenage pregnancy, you didn't read yesterdays "news" article about religious states did you?

What a surprise (2, Funny)

Haoie (1277294) | more than 5 years ago | (#29533607)

When you think high tech, well networked states, you don't tend to think of there.

Re:What a surprise (1)

Normal Dan (1053064) | more than 5 years ago | (#29534179)

We have Micron and HP out here, so we are reasonably well connected. We also have a lot of less than technically inclined individuals. Putting the two together, I can understand why we might have so much spam.

Re:What a surprise (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 5 years ago | (#29540197)

I once received a magazine subscription offer, from "Time" if I remember correctly, that asked the question, "What would you do if they built a nuclear reactor near Idaho Falls".
You probably won't understand why I laughed about this without this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_National_Laboratory, or the quote from that article "INL has 52 reactors, three of which are reportedly still operating". I suspect they are probably underestimating both those numbers.
Idaho has a lot of farmers, but also has a lot more tech than most people realize.

Re:What a surprise (1)

McSnickered (67307) | more than 5 years ago | (#29540373)

Yes - Idaho is a filth-encrusted hole of pestilence and misery. You don't want to move here.

(We have to say that to keep all the Californians out.)

Re:What a surprise (1)

Ironica (124657) | more than 5 years ago | (#29543703)

Yes - Idaho is a filth-encrusted hole of pestilence and misery. You don't want to move here.

(We have to say that to keep all the Californians out.)

Gosh... I own a house in Idaho, and was planning to sell it, but maybe we should just move there!

(What's the job market like in Gooding?)

Do Your Potatoes Leave Her Laughing? (3, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#29533611)

Hey guys, hott tip, Quantum Tubers [quantumtubers.com] stock at five cents, tomorrow at five dollars! Can't lose, like printing money. Buy Buy Buy!

I understand where you are going, but... (5, Insightful)

swanzilla (1458281) | more than 5 years ago | (#29533629)

FTA:

MessageLabs unveiled a list of the top U.S. spammed states, with surprising results - the spam capital of the US is Idaho with 93.8 percent of spam, far exceeding the global spam rate for September 2009 of 86.4 percent.

...what sort of poorly-stated metric is "percent of spam"

Re:I understand where you are going, but... (5, Insightful)

SoupGuru (723634) | more than 5 years ago | (#29533695)

I agree. I have no idea what that means. I assume that they mean what percent of overall mail is spam.

I'm also having problems finding their methods. Or ideas why Idaho would top the list. "The recession" isn't a localized phenomenon affecting just Idaho.

Garbage.

Re:I understand where you are going, but... (1)

Ironica (124657) | more than 5 years ago | (#29534103)

yeah... I actually read TFA because I figured the summary was just garbage. But no, that's how the article puts it, too, without EVER explaining what on earth they're trying to say.

Re:I understand where you are going, but... (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 5 years ago | (#29534169)

Futhermore they don't state at all how they determine the physical destination of the intended spam receiver. Perhaps they got some data that included the domains of the recipients of spam and correlated that to a location, but that would only target a portion of the population, namely those who use a business's domain that is located in a state(and not multiple states), and those who use their local ISPs email for personal mail(and with GMail, Yahoo and their ilk, who does that anymore?) I sincerely doubt their data is really representative of all the email sent in the US.

Ugh, horrible bad usage, batman (5, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 5 years ago | (#29533643)

Idaho has 93% of spam. No.

Spam comprises 93% of emails in Idaho. Very big difference.

And as for the reasons given? Ridiculous, unless you can also explain why Idaho was disproportionately affected by those factors.

You want to know the real reasons Idaho is one of the most spammed states?

Higher percentage of "noob" users. Idaho came to the table pretty late, and a disproportionate number of people in Idaho don't yet know basic ways of reducing spam.

Or possibly, people in Idaho are more likely to fall for spam advertising.

But in no way do the reasons given (which relate to the total increase in spam) explain Idaho's predicament.

On second thought (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 5 years ago | (#29533677)

On second thought, the real reason Idaho has a disproportionate amount of spam is because they grow so many potatoes there.

Potatoes, spam, eggs, spam and spam has a lot more spam in it than spam, eggs, sausage and spam.

Re:Ugh, horrible bad usage, batman (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29533743)

Or the real reason Idaho is the most spammed state: the data is bullshit.

Re:Ugh, horrible bad usage, batman (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29533755)

I would actually venture that the reason spam is such a high percentage of email in Idaho is because they send so little other email.

I would rather see a spam messages per capita (or at least email address).

Re:Ugh, horrible bad usage, batman (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#29533757)

Higher percentage of "noob" users. Idaho came to the table pretty late ...

Not sure if you're trying to be funny but it's more likely that Idaho has a smaller population than most states (1.5 million?) and therefore if they get the same amount of spam as another state, it's going to skew their percentages. I'm guessing spam is sent in indifferent loads to companies and spam targeting companies is probably common. I guess usage of Gmail or Hotmail wouldn't skew this but I'm betting we're seeing an outlier because of the low population in Idaho. Not because they're any more 'n00bs' than we are. Tried my hardest to find the report but came up empty handed. Your odd superiority toward a state with a lower population is confusing but I guess you must think whatever state you're in to be the most advanced of all fifty ... no matter what state it is, that's not true. Hell, Iowa might have the most advanced storage technology right now ... as odd as that may sound it's cheap to build them out there!

What's your evidence that Idaho came pretty late?

Re:Ugh, horrible bad usage, batman (1)

tool462 (677306) | more than 5 years ago | (#29534007)

Not to defend the GP, but there are plenty of other low population states, and none of them even made the top ten. In fact, most of the rest of the top-listed are among the most populous states.

It seems much more likely to me that it's as an AC above posted--the data are bullshit. It reads like a survey released by a security software company to sell more copies of their tools. In a word, spam.

Re:Ugh, horrible bad usage, batman (1)

Drahgkar (945536) | more than 5 years ago | (#29534387)

Having lived in Idaho, I would say that the problem here is probably a mixture of the data being BS, population, computer's per home, average computer know-how, the actual ratio of spam to legitimate email going to users in that state, and the average air speed of a coconut-laden swallow.

I'm gonna go with the BS option personally.

Re:Ugh, horrible bad usage, batman (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 5 years ago | (#29534175)

It's idle speculation based upon stats I'd read sometime in the past few years, plus my observations from the several vacations I've taken in Idaho (I've got family there). I personally love Idaho... but it's no secret that outside of Boise, Idaho is rural and poor, two factors that affect computer/internet penetration.

Mostly it was just an observation that the usage in TFA is completely off, coupled with some unfounded speculation, and then at some point it became a setup for a piss-poor spam joke that everybody and their brother probably thought of before I did.

Re:Ugh, horrible bad usage, batman (1)

Eq 7-2521 (159354) | more than 5 years ago | (#29542073)

I have evidence. My son's elementary school newsletter this week has a notice in it that as of next week they're "going paperless" and will only be posting future newsletters and other correspondence to the web site. A great idea that will probably help a bit with the budget shortfall. It says at the end, "Please contact us if you do not have web access so we can keep you in the loop." Really. In 2009.

Re:Ugh, horrible bad usage, batman (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29533907)

I imagine the spam in Idaho has a lot more spam in it. I've only had spam in Oregon and it's pretty spammy. California spam is weak spam and AZ is right out. OR is right next to Idaho though, so I'm sure it's close to 90 or maybe 87%. I have never had the 93% Idaho spam.

Re:Ugh, horrible bad usage, batman (1)

Ironica (124657) | more than 5 years ago | (#29534171)

Idaho has 93% of spam. No.

Spam comprises 93% of emails in Idaho. Very big difference.

I'm guessing that's what they meant also, but really, there's no confirmation of this theory anywhere in TFA. It's simply the most sensible interpretation of their fumbling attempt to discourse.

You want to know the real reasons Idaho is one of the most spammed states?

Higher percentage of "noob" users. Idaho came to the table pretty late, and a disproportionate number of people in Idaho don't yet know basic ways of reducing spam.

Or possibly, people in Idaho are more likely to fall for spam advertising.

I doubt it's either of these. A very low percentage of emails give much geographic information about their associated users, so even if Idaho was the Spam Sucker Capital of the Universe, the spammers wouldn't know how to target Idahoans. And I think that, even if it's true that Idaho adopted email later relative to other worldwide locales, by now it's been long enough since widespread adoption that the n00b effect is diminished to statistical insignificance.

The most likely explanation (if, in fact, the phenomenon poorly documented in this article bears any semblance to reality) is that Idaho has a lower rate of email-based commerce than other states, due to lower population density and an economy that is largely rooted in agriculture (no pun intended). A larger percentage of email is probably personal rather than professional, and personal email use patterns are more likely to engender large spam-to-useful ratios.

My personal war... (3, Informative)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 5 years ago | (#29533697)

âoeSpammers have taken full advantage of both the economic uncertainty of some and the trustworthiness of others for their own rewards. Automated tools, resilient botnets and targeted spam campaigns are all part of the spammersâ(TM) toolkit and they are constantly evolving these techniques to outsmart any effort to stop them. No state is immune to the affects of spam.â

Whenever someone asks me about a spam email and whether the email is true, I respond with "No legitimate business uses spam, unsolicited email, or whatever you want to call it. They are all scams - no exceptions."

Start educating people that that email in their inbox is a scam. Period. And maybe, just maybe, one day those crooks will stop this shit.

Re:My personal war... (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 5 years ago | (#29534509)

As long as it only take 1 sucker/buyer out of every million spam emails sent, I doubt it will ever stop. Now start charging $0.001 for every external email sent...them maybe it slow it down. Make the 1 buyer cost the spammer $1000 and they might at least focus their effort somewhat.

Re:My personal war... (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 5 years ago | (#29540041)

Your post advocates a

( ) technical (X) legislative (X) 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
(X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
(X) 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
(X) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(X) 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
(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(X) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
(X) 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
(X) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
(X) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

(X) 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
(X) 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
(X) 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:

(X) 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!

Article is nonsense (4, Interesting)

timeOday (582209) | more than 5 years ago | (#29533777)

I don't think whoever wrote the article understands what they're trying to explain. First, the author repeatedly says "percent of spam" (e.g. "the spam capital of the US is Idaho with 93.8 percent of spam," and "...Puerto Rico, with 83.1 percent of spam") when apparently the data is actually the percent of email received in the state which is spam. Second, the explanations given for Idaho topping this list have no relevance to the question whatever. Claiming botnets and the recession are to blame with no attempt to explain how these factors impact Idaho different than other states is nonsense! Finally, even if the author understood the data, the data is uninteresting without some test of statistical significance. The difference between states with highest and lowest spam rates is only 10%, is that significant? Is it repeatable if you sampled during a different interval? Who knows.

Re:Article is nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29535449)

Well, in regards to your question about whether a 10% difference of spam is significant, I think that spam metric is flawed. You should index off legitimate emails (so "90% spam" is 9 times as much spam as email, and "80% spam" is only 4 times as much), or index off the number of email accounts (reporting, e.g. 1000 spams/inbox/week). Including the spam in your baseline, while mathematically equivalent to the former, makes the percentage awkward for any useful purpose, and tends to obscure rather than clarify the truth behind the data. And throwing away the absolute counts in favor of percentages only is probably not good either...

Naturally, though, whatever metric is used, we still do need month-to-month comparisons and statiscal analysis to establish significance.

World smallest fiddle... (1)

Zantac69 (1331461) | more than 5 years ago | (#29533811)

...playing just for those bored enough to make a list like this.

Seriously though - who cares what state gets the most spam? Its not like spam is more prevalanent in low income areas or in areas with high instances of drug usage - and its not like I am going to NOT move somewhere because they have a lot of spam (unless you are talking about the "food" variety).

Re:World smallest fiddle... (1)

Ironica (124657) | more than 5 years ago | (#29534187)

its not like I am going to NOT move somewhere because they have a lot of spam (unless you are talking about the "food" variety).

So you avoid Hawaii like the plague?

Re:World smallest fiddle... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29541971)

its not like I am going to NOT move somewhere because they have a lot of spam (unless you are talking about the "food" variety).

So you avoid Hawaii like the plague?

You apparently didn't read the GP's parenthetical phrase, where in there was an explicit exception made for the spiced ham type of spam. Slashdot should have a "-1 Oblivious" mod.

Re:World smallest fiddle... (1)

Ironica (124657) | more than 5 years ago | (#29572885)

And you, sir, have trouble with multiple nested negatives. He's NOT going to NOT move somewhere because they have a lot of spam... take out both negatives, he's perfectly fine living somewhere with a lot of spam. UNLESS (another negative) you are talking about the food variety... implying that he *would* avoid living somewhere that had an overrepresentation of food Spam (R). Such as Hawaii.

In Gulag Amerika: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29533871)

Spammed states top YOU !

Yours In Domodedovo,
Philboyd Studge

Of course its Idaho! (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 5 years ago | (#29534027)

I don't get why a cooking article is on /. but I mean, who hasn't had some Mashed potatoes and SPAMburgers at some point in their life?

Conclusion does not support evidence (3, Insightful)

Captain Spam (66120) | more than 5 years ago | (#29534041)

The difference can be attributed to the resilient and aggressive botnet market as well as a higher volume of global spam that has ensued since the beginning of the credit crisis toward the end of 2008.

Um... no, those two facts can perhaps help to explain the overall increase in spam, globally. They do absolutely nothing to explain why Idaho, specifically, has jumped up the list of being spammed more often per capita.

Spaming slashdot (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 5 years ago | (#29534113)

This is the same website with a bogus security story (straight from PR press I think) just a while back. Maybe slashdot should filter that site?

How would you measure this? (2, Interesting)

sl4x74 (1038976) | more than 5 years ago | (#29534157)

OK, I live in Idaho. My email addresses are Gmail and me.com accounts. How would they know that those email addresses belong to someone in Idaho? I assume the email servers where the email is delivered probably aren't even in this state. Furthermore, Google's spam filtering is pretty darn good and I rarely see any spam. Not sure what difference it makes where you live.

Re:How would you measure this? (1)

mikehoskins (177074) | more than 5 years ago | (#29534433)

Please enlighten us, could we have your full email address, to verify your spam percentage?

Re:How would you measure this? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#29534663)

Sure!

HughJass@biggbutts.com

Re:How would you measure this? (1)

mcsqueak (1043736) | more than 5 years ago | (#29534495)

How would they know that those email addresses belong to someone in Idaho?

Perhaps they are able to figure it out based on the location of the ip address that is connecting to your email accounts...

Re:How would you measure this? (1)

ComputerGeek01 (1182793) | more than 5 years ago | (#29534639)

I would imagine they place trap accounts\machines in Idaho or they do a survey. In the later case the data would be scewed out of this world because only the useless gits who open and subscribe to spam do those surveys.

Re:How would you measure this? (1)

cyphercell (843398) | more than 5 years ago | (#29536835)

That depends on how they read the data, doesn't it. I mean if more useless gits respond from Idaho...

Greetings, friend! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29534251)

I am Nigerian Prince (not of the 'Purple Rain' kind!) Your grandmother was recently deceased in great Nigerian potato famine and left you USD$1.000.000,00 in savings. Please kindly to be responding to me at your convenience, and I will be forwarding the proceeds to you immediately.

Sincerely,
Prince Sunny Mbabe Lesotho Aki Harare Botswanawana

Idaho? No, U Da Ho! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29534481)

I couldn't help myself.

Hawaii (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29534795)

I thought Hawaii was the SPAM [wikipedia.org] state?

Check this out (1)

ComputerGeek01 (1182793) | more than 5 years ago | (#29534861)

I wanted to gauge computer usage in Idaho to my area so I compared the Craigslist Rants and Raves in East Idaho to my area...yeah next to Buffalo NY either East Idaho is Heaven on Earth or NOBODY owns\ knows what a computer is.

Not Idaho (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#29535787)

I'm pretty sure that Hawaii [viamagazine.com] is the national span capitol.

Where do you get the source report? (1)

slfisher (1353081) | more than 5 years ago | (#29536211)

I see a lot of stories on this today, but the MessageLabs site doesn't have it and only one story I've read has a link to the actual report -- which doesn't appear to be correct. Anybody have a link to the actual report?

What he meant to say... (1)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 5 years ago | (#29538375)

>The difference can be attributed to the resilient and aggressive botnet market as well as a higher volume of global spam that has >ensued since the beginning of the credit crisis toward the end of 2008
Translation...

In the mid USA where most hicks live and breed, is where you will find the most success spreading the Nigerian scams
where most people living on the coast (east or west) would have seen this scam coming a mile away.

Seriously though, you WILL find more success where there is less tech presence or more NEWLY introduced tech presence,
where such thing as a computer might still not quite be yet a full daily household item. If you go into a very technologically advanced country or state, where everybody is texting, chances are, everybody has heard of most scams and can avoid them no problem.

Now I know... (1)

kiehlster (844523) | more than 5 years ago | (#29538765)

where bob [at] aol [dot] com lives.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?