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!

Spam, Milord

michael posted more than 11 years ago | from the green-eggs-desperately-needed dept.

Spam 342

Your daily dose of spam... rjwoodhead writes "Hansard, the official journal of the UK parliament, reports on a recent discussion of spam in the House of Lords which not only mentions Monty Python, but reads like one of their skits." A New York spammer has been arrested. One account isn't scientifically representative, but it's a grim picture when you're showing a spam-doubling every 42 days. And an article in New Scientist suggests solving a puzzle, which is essentially the same idea as hash cash.

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

IN SOVIET RUSSIA... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5956327)

...awful joke runs YOU into ground!

Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5956489)

ISR is less tiresome that SPAM!

yeah thats right (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5956329)

Tell your mom, when i am done fucking her, that I achieved another first post. SUCK J00 C0X0R!!!!!

MOMMA SAID KNOCK YOU OUT, CUZ YOU FAIL, BITCH! (-1)

I VOMIT ON FAILURES! (652124) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956442)

Momma also kick your pansy ass just for being a loser! Prepare for chunks!

hello mister man (-1, Offtopic)

Anonamused Cow-herd (614126) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956338)

helloooo mister man are you a mister man I love the mister man! I give you much love. You give me all your pies. ~Tris.

Vinny Testa's (-1)

Guns n' Roses Troll (207208) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956343)

VT's has the best pork chops _EVAR_.

Grilled Pork Chops with Peppers* Homemade vinegar peppers piled high over deliciously-large grilled center-cut pork chops. Comes with oven-roasted potatoes and Chef's vegetable of the day. per uno $16.95

I invite you to eat at this fine establishment [vinnytestas.com] .

You're the King? Well I didn't vote for you! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5956348)

Is this topic going to be what the peasant says in "Warcraft 3: The Frozen Throne" when you click on him too many times?

Bloody Vikings! (5, Funny)

da3dAlus (20553) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956352)

"Baked beans are off, all we have is SPAM!"

Most Spam Originates From The White House (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5956583)


It pays to be ignorant [whitehouse.org]

Thanks for nothing,
W00t

Re:Bloody Vikings! (2, Informative)

coryboehne (244614) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956599)

Q.
If a spam king and a spam queen have sex what do you get??

A.
A spamwich!

Ok, so it's a lame joke, but I still think it's funny..

Re:Bloody Vikings! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5956646)

And what's the result of that sex? The Earl of Spamwich, of course!

Gotta love british humor (5, Funny)

(54)T-Dub (642521) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956364)

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister think of a name for the enormous amount of unsolicited ordinary mail we receive?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, when I have a moment I shall bend my mind to that question.

Re:Gotta love british humor (4, Funny)

Nept (21497) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956500)

I though the funniest line was

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, do the Government have any plans to restrict unsolicited faxes? My fax paper is always being wasted by people who send me faxes I do not want. I do not know whether they could be called "corned beef" or something, but I have had enough of them.

I expected them at any point to start murmuring rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb. (custard!) .... that for goon show fans :)

Re:Gotta love british humor (4, Funny)

hndrcks (39873) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956609)

I think the comment right before the spam discussion gives everyone a good idea of the weighty matters taken up by the House of Lords:

Baroness Strange: My Lords, does the Minister agree that sardine tins and anchovy tins are also very difficult to open with their tin-openers?

At least they didn't flee to Oklahoma to avoid quorum!

Re:Gotta love british humor (1)

YetAnotherAnonymousC (594097) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956653)

Maybe we can import some of these guys to Texas. They can't be any worse than my current AWOL rep...

Re:Gotta love british humor (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5956508)

It's worth noting that Lord Sainsbury of Turville is the Parlimantary Undersecretary for Technology and Innovation (something like that). Lord of the Geeks?

Re:Gotta love british humor (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5956557)

Naw, he only got that position so he can make sure GM food gets forced down our throats so his supermarkets can make more of what young persons today refer to as "tha bling bling".

I have been unable to determine the origins of this term, but I shall bend my mind to it at the nearest opportunity.

Redhat Lunix *still* sucks... I WANT ANSWERS! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5956365)

Reposted because you Linux fucks didn't give me a good enough answer:

Last night, after I borked my Windows XP installation, I decided to make the transition to Linux.
I chose Redhat 9, big mistake.
The entire distro is a joke:
After fighting with trying to allow normal users to mount hard drives, I tried to play some music. Redhat decided to remove MP3 support from XMMS. Fuck that.
I wanted to watch TV with my tuner card. So I try and modprobe it. The command doesn't exist. Insmod; same thing.
I need to get on the web to look this shit up, so I try ifconfig to see if everything is running properly. Nah, ifconfig isn't there either.I am online, but I still don't know what my IP is.
After staying up way too late trying to solve dependency issues with ALSA, I try to put the PC in standby and go to bed. Nope, it tries to go into suspend mode, only to wake up seconds later.
Pissed off I slam the power button, and go to bed with a new found hatred for Redhat.

Now, I'm no Linux newbie. I had Slackware 7.1 set up on my old machine for the longest time, using nothing but the command line (XFree86 didn't like the shitty Compaq video card).
I know how to set things up by hand, but I thought with Redhat I shouldn't have to.
But if I do, they shouldn't remove the basic tools needed to do so.

I wanted an easy Linux set-up to save time.
If I wanted to fuck around, I'd install Debian.

Fuck Redhat, fuck them in thier stupid asses.

I forgot something: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5956403)

-I want to be able to mount as a user because all my MP3s (that I can't listen too) are on the second drive.
-/bin files should be able to be run from any location
-ALSA should be included with Redhat
-APM should work!

And the question: Why isn't Lunix ready for the desktop?

Re:Redhat Lunix *still* sucks... I WANT ANSWERS! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5956496)

You're a troll but I'll bite.

Go back to your Windows infected environment. Just because you can say a few keywords doesn't mean you aren't a newbie( This isn't Google you know).

BTW, I recommend medical care. The Windows environment has spread into your brain. Tragic.

These spam laws are a waste of time (5, Insightful)

w.p.richardson (218394) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956369)

So one spammer gets arrested. So what? It's just red meat for the rabid anti-spammers, but nothing will come of it. You know, it's not legal to spam faxes either, but guess what... my office fax is loaded with crap every day!

Why waste time with legislation? A more permanent solution would focus on the technical - e.g., changing the protocol to forbid spam, etc.

Re:These spam laws are a waste of time (0)

thewebgeek (668647) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956414)

My question is what is spam, and do these laws also account for instant messaging and two way text messaging or just spam via email?

Re:These spam laws are a waste of time (1)

spumoni_fettuccini (668603) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956492)

We recently went to a fax through e-mail, so we hardly use the fax machine at all. Now we get "fax spam" in our inbox. I wonder how hard it would be to use that against spammers, as now our fax and e-mail are one [so to speak]. It worked a while back when that one guy convinced a judge that his computer was a fax [sort of] and won a case. Sorry can't remember how long ago that was.

Re:These spam laws are a waste of time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5956511)

ALL advertising should be outlawed!

If I want to know about your peabrained product, I'd have asked you about it muthefukker!

Re:These spam laws are a waste of time (2, Interesting)

zakezuke (229119) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956439)

It could be like the war on drugs, that convicted mass spammers loose access to equipment associated with the dealing of spam, which would include computers, software, a whole slew of goods that could be sold at auction to support local law enforcement, as well as compensate for those who lost valuable time reading thigns like, "7 million singles looking for you".

Isn't that what they do with other forms of computer crime anyway?

Hell, a search warrent alone would put a spam business down and out pending trial.

Mod Parent of Parent UP (4, Insightful)

(54)T-Dub (642521) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956527)

Oh right, and the war on drugs has been such a success?

Besides the parent has a good point. The answer is not through legislation. What is to stop people from hosting their spam sites off shores [sealandgov.com] where they are protected from the laws. Kind of like the 809 Phone Call Scam [boycottwatch.org] .

Re:These spam laws are a waste of time (3, Interesting)

moehoward (668736) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956488)

I think that the laws will have a small effect. There will be a few big profile arrests, fines, confiscation of computers, public lynchings, etc.

The real issues are the international issue and then the sheer magnitude of the problem. The individual States are strapped for cash. No AG office or law enforcement agency needs more work. Call a state communications commission and ask what they hear about... They will tell you that ALL they hear about all day long is telemarketing complaints. They are completely swamped by that alone, which is mostly legal. Just think how up to their necks they will be in spam complaints. I sure don't want to pay more a lot more taxes to fight spam, keep spammers in jail, or pay for the syringe to put them away for good.

I'd have to agree that the answer to spam is in the technology. We need to re-engineer the email system. We all knew it was open for abuse from day one. If someone suggests a good effort that is taking place in that direction, let me know so I can toss some money their way. Now there is something I'd rather throw money at.

Puzzles = Waste of CPU cycles? (4, Interesting)

tunabomber (259585) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956376)

Instead of doing some random puzzle, why not kill two birds with one stone and have machines that want to send email or have access to other services do a small work unit for folding@home or something.

Re:Puzzles = Waste of CPU cycles? (4, Insightful)

mblase (200735) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956448)

Instead of doing some random puzzle, why not kill two birds with one stone and have machines that want to send email or have access to other services do a small work unit for folding@home or something.

The idea is to authorize the querying computer by giving them a problem to solve for which the answer is already known. Something like Folding@home involves puzzles for which the answers aren't yet known, so if the querying computer avoided solving it and just sent back a garbage solution the host machine wouldn't know the difference.

Re:Puzzles = Waste of CPU cycles? (1)

spydir31 (312329) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956451)

why not make human solvable ones?
force the spammers to do a bit of work :)

Re:Puzzles = Waste of CPU cycles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5956454)

Instead of doing some random puzzle, why not kill two birds with one stone and have machines that want to send email or have access to other services do a small work unit for folding@home or something.

Much like anti-piracy DRM technologies, this would harm innocent Net users more than guilty spammers (who would probably just resort to hacking into unprotected systems to avoid the measures).

Also... (1)

tunabomber (259585) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956581)

The puzzle solution seems to be a convenient one for hardware manufacturers- all of the puzzles would have to be tough enough to slow down the spammers and their 2-GHz PIII's, but then it would take the poor bloke with a 66-MHz machine 30 times longer to send his email.

Karma Whoring (-1, Offtopic)

swordboy (472941) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956379)

Alan Ralsky's [freep.com] home address [state.mi.us]

Re:Karma Whoring (4, Funny)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956537)

You know, I just figured this out:
If I charged $1 to listen to a 30-second ad, I'd be making $120 / hour!!!
Then I could finally afford to get those penis and brest enlargement operations I always wanted!!

Don't even look at this depraved shit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5956565)

That'd get you halfway there! Then you just need the fur and tail [ctrl-c.liu.se] !!!

Not to be a wet blanket, but... (5, Informative)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956384)

New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer heralded the case as the first criminal prosecution of a spammer under New York's six-month-old identity-theft statute. "Spammers who forge documents and steal the identity of others to create their e-mail traffic will be prosecuted," Spitzer said at a press conference.

Seriously...the Buffalo spammer was almost trying to get caught, at this rate. The reason they got him is not because he's a scumbag spammer; it's because he brazenly engaged in identity theft. That just happened to be a tool that he then used to aid his spamming operation.

The article contains one or two references to the amount of bandwidth consumed by his activities, but so what? If it hadn't been for the identity theft, he'd be vilified on /. -- and free to continue spamming. Sorry, but I don't see this as all that encouraging.

Um, what? (4, Informative)

bopo (105833) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956387)

Blockquoth the Lord Sainsbury of Turville:
We aim to implement by the end of October this year the privacy and electronic communications directive. This includes requirements that unsolicited e-mails may be sent to individuals only for the purpose of direct marketing with their prior consent...
"Please send me stuff I don't want you to send me."? (Yes, I know what he means, it just struck me as funny.)

Also, I know we're not supposed to bitch about this, but it's a slow day at work and I'm bored: "2003-05-14 16:11:21 Buffalo Spammer Arrested for Identity Theft (articles,spam) (rejected)"

Re:Um, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5956415)

Ah, yours didn't get accepted as you mentioned the truth.
Now if you had lied and said he was arrested for the act of spamming itself, not for the actions he used to get himself the accounts he spammed with then you would have got it posted.

The alternative (0, Offtopic)

Paddyish (612430) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956391)

Forget Spam, wouldn't you prefer a rat sorbet?

Re:The alternative (1)

oO0OoO0Oo (548702) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956419)

The jugged fish is 'alibut!

Earthlink Abuse Department Rejoices (5, Interesting)

datavortex (132049) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956394)

here [mindspring.com] is a photo of some of the people in the Earthlink Abuse Department responsible for the yearlong investigation that landed the Buffalo spammer in jail. Today is a great day for all of us!

The people pictured are from the Atlanta team, there's also a Pasadena team that is putting a picture together. From left to right they are: Tom Tatom, Kate Trower, Bobby Arnold, Beth, Milliken, Larry Fine, and Louis Rush. People in Atlanta not pictured include our team lead Erich Hablutzel, Brian Greer, and the departmental manager, Mary Youngblood. The Pasadena crew includes Laura Truchon, Kenn Wilson, Brad Patton, Brian Majeska, Jesse Kolbert, Kevin Phillips.

Today is a good day for all anti-spam activists!

Re:Earthlink Abuse Department Rejoices (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5956512)

Beth looks like a meat fan.

Re:Earthlink Abuse Department Rejoices (-1)

Guns n' Roses Troll (207208) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956590)

Man, I'd love to bang the shit out of the chick holding the spam can. You work at Earthlink - tell me, does she give it up easily? What does she taste like? And as for the other people in that picture.. well.. it's not hard to see why they're hiding behind computers all day.

Re:Earthlink Abuse Department Rejoices (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5956611)

Wow, is there a reason that that the only thing in focus in that picture is the stapler on the desk?

Re:Earthlink Abuse Department Rejoices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5956652)

Because it's not a red Swingline stapler.

Re:Earthlink Abuse Department Rejoices (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5956620)

Tell us more about Beth.

bunch of smelly geeks! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5956668)

I bet she likes a good pork!

Welcome to the 21st Century.... (1)

benito27uk (646600) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956395)

Lord Renton: "bearing in mind that some of us wish to be protected from having an e-mail? Obviously Lord Renton isn't going to be having a problem with spam!

Not arrested for spamming (2, Interesting)

secolactico (519805) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956399)

So this guy gets arrested. But not for sending spam, but for stealing credit cards to fund his spamming operations. Also for identity theft and fraud. Still legal to spam, it seems.

Techincal Lords... (4, Interesting)

girl_geek_antinomy (626942) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956404)

Actually, I heard this debate on the radio late at night and I was impressed with the Lords taking an interest in something which as far as I know the House of Commons hasn't yet bothered to devote any time to. It seems to me a wonderful illustration of the Lords coming kicking and screaming into the 21st Century. Long may it continue!

Re:Techincal Lords... (1)

Chicane-UK (455253) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956553)

I am pretty gobsmacked they even managed to have a conversation as detailed about it as that.

I am kinda left with images of 70+ year old men sitting looking baffled in a half empty house of commons, prodding their neighbours and discussing under hushed voices what tinned meat has to do with these darn fangled computer contraptions.

Though to be fair my granddad used to be interested in the IT market at the ripe old age of 80, and would regularly clip out articles about the likes of Cisco and Microsoft, and post them to me.

We have to be serious about humour (5, Funny)

91degrees (207121) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956406)

It's good to see that they can throw in Pythin references to a debate. It's what makes us British goddammit! If you can't say "Spam Spam Spam Spam" with a straight face, in a serious debate, you have no business calling yourself a citizen, and especially not a member of the house of Lords!

Re:We have to be serious about humour (1)

wsimmonds (532383) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956513)

Damn I just used my mod points up on other posts, I'd have given you +1 funny if I could have :D

Monty's House of Lords (4, Interesting)

stefanlasiewski (63134) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956408)

recent discussion of spam in the House of Lords which not only mentions Monty Python, but reads like one of their skits.

Well sheesh, where do you think Monty Python drew their inspiration from? Your nostril?

The HoL discussions are pretty odd from an American standpoint (Hey! It's rude to interrupt! So quit it with your booing and hissing and here-hereing!), but at least most of the house is present during the debates. In the States, it's not uncommon to see a Congressman debating in front of a mostly empty congressional hall.

Re:Monty's House of Lords (1)

deaddrunk (443038) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956472)

Which is pretty much what the House of Commons is like most days, since our representatives are off making money somewhere else instead of doing the job we're paying them to do.

Re:Monty's House of Lords (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5956531)

In the States, it's not uncommon to see a Congressman debating in front of a mostly empty congressional hall.

You are probrably confusing regular congressional sessions with Special Orders.

Special Orders allow congressmen to discuss any topic for any length of time. This occurs after the regular sessions are complete, in the evening hours. They are generally for the benefit of the C-SPAN audience and for the congressman to get what he wants into the Congressional Record.

Re:Monty's House of Lords (3, Insightful)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956548)

The HoL discussions are pretty odd from an American standpoint (Hey! It's rude to interrupt! So quit it with your booing and hissing and here-hereing!), but at least most of the house is present during the debates.

My bet is that the Lords are scared. They know perfectly well that Blair has an immense Commons majority and therefore could make mincemeat of them at a whim. He's already given them something of a bloody nose with the fairly limited reforms he's had so far. They face a near-absolute power that doesn't particularly like them.

How, then, can they save themselves? How can they stop Blair deciding to kick the whole lot of them out and install an elected or appointed second house? Answer: by appearing useful. If the Lords develop a reputation for being honest, for always turning up for debates, for standing up for the people rather than the corporations or the Americans once in a while... then Blair won't touch them, because that would be a disaster for him.

Personally, I think the Lords _should_ go, and be replaced with a proportionally-elected house, to complement the first-past-the-post Commons. But they're not all that bad as it is. That Hansard article was comedy gold :-)

Re:Monty's House of Lords (1)

WegianWarrior (649800) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956551)

Say what you want about the britsh parliment, but they got style. Boored with the debate? Put your feet on the table. Dislike what the fellow is talkign about? Boo on him. Time for a vote? Ring bells like a victorian firebrigade and walk thru one of two doors.

It may be oldfashioned (the two sides are two swordslength apart I'm told, to stop the representatives from killing one another), but it works rather well at taking the will of the people and turning it into practical politics (as opposed to the will of the cooperations).

Meaningless trivea; I'm told you only need three lords in the House of Lords for it to be a legal session - which means that two crazy lords can plunge the UK into chaos.

Re:Monty's House of Lords (1)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956574)

Well, I was in London right at the hight of the 48 hours 'till we bomb Iraq and I visited the House of Lords (debating some changes to procedures discharging patients from hospitals). There were more people in the visitor's gallery than on the floor (25 at most, and half of them were clearly asleep). From what I've been told, this is fairly common. The House of Commons on the other hand was a beehive of activity.

Re:Monty's House of Lords (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5956615)

That would be because most of the lords have nothing better to do.

I always wondered... (2, Interesting)

MeanE (469971) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956411)

are the spammers increasing the amount of spam because:

a)They are seeing an increase in profit with the more spam they send.
b)They are spamming more because of black lists and the such.
c)More people are just getting in on it.

or are their other reasons. As a side note...does anyone actually know a person who purchased something from a spammer? Not I.

Re:I always wondered... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5956458)

or are their other reasons.

d) There are a larger number of ISP's tollerating spam.

These are mostly in China and Brazil these days. Complaints haven't closed http://yellow.feelingbetter.com.br and they spam me up to three times a day and yesterday, twice in ten minutes. Before that they used http://blue.yourthings.com.br, which from what I can tell is the same ISP. I'd like to see china-net.com (or howerver it's spelled) blocked at the border.

Re:I always wondered... (1)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956460)

b)They are spamming more because of black lists and the such.

This is it, probably. My 1998-vintage Hotmail account gets a veritable flood of spam, but MS recently had the filters improved and they cut out the vast majority. I don't know about false positives because what gets filtered is automatically binned, else I'd reach my storage limit in a couple of hours.

Of what gets through, most is from one penis spammer and one porno spammer. They each send the exact same spam several times a day. My guess is that in addition to the matter of filters, they realise that their spams are in competition with everyone else's spams. Nobody ever reads all their spam; at most, you'll glance at one or two then nuke the lot. So, the spammer's best means of making sure it's THEIR spam that gets read is - send many copies.

Re:I always wondered... (1)

bobsledbob (315580) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956473)


or d) They are seeing a decrease in profit, which means they have to send more in order to make up for the losses.

51st State, Great Britain (-1, Troll)

NDPTAL85 (260093) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956417)

I think whats really remarkable here is to see the inner workings of the British Parliment and how much influence the US Federal and State Legislatures have on what they do and what bills they pass.

Hopefully someone in the US Congress will soon draw up a bill to formally induct the Nation State of Great Britain into full and complete Statehood as the 51st United State of America.

Then Austrailia, then New Zealand, then Canada, and begin negotiations with the Eastern European "New Europe" nations.

Re:51st State, Great Britain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5956597)

Hopefully someone in the US Congress will soon draw up a bill to formally induct the Nation State of Great Britain into full and complete Statehood as the 51st United State of America.

No offence.. but i'd rather remain a part of Europe than a part of the United States.

Open letter to spammers (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5956420)


One account isn't scientifically representative, but it's a grim picture when you're showing a spam-doubling every 42 days

Dear Spammers,

Please slow down your spamming to doubling only every 18 months. This will give Moore's Law a chance to keep pace.

Thank you.

reverse checking on senders address (5, Interesting)

joeldg (518249) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956429)

I am writing a SMTP server which has a plugin called "reverse" which goes and checks the "mail from:" address to see if it is valid.
http://lucifer.intercosmos.net/index.php?display=h oneymail [intercosmos.net] it is not finished yet, but hopefully it will keep only people with real email addresses able to send email.
And yes, it does store known "good" emails in shared memory so that all child processes can have access and know which emails are already allowed to send email.
The project is called honeymail as you can set it to "honeymode" so that when a spammer finds it and thinks it is an open-relay they start sending and everything just gets forwarded to spamcop, Occams razor etc..
Would love any ideas anyone has on honeymail.

Re:reverse checking on senders address (1)

spydir31 (312329) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956499)

bah, that won't work. most servers (hopefully, mine at least) don't disclose whether or not a user actually exists.
and it does nothing for joe jobs either.

Re:reverse checking on senders address (1)

joeldg (518249) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956612)

well, if your mailserver "Accepts" mail for you then this in fact will work. I just posted the code to do reverse checking on the site. Go take a look.

why does /. require subjects? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5956438)

Lord Razzall: My Lords, given the Government's concern about voter turnout in elections and their commitment to increasing the use of Internet voting and campaigning, does the Minister consider that further restrictions on unsolicited e-mails would be contrary to that objective?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, no, not at all. I cannot see that it helps anyone in any activity, including voting, to have their computers flooded with this often quite distasteful material. It takes up a large capacity--some 40 per cent of e-mails around the

hey, looks like the british politicians actually think law applies to them as well, unlike the americans that want to be able to spam you with political messages

73 Brits a year injured by toothpaste... (0, Offtopic)

tundog (445786) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956440)

...so that explains their reluctance to practice proper oral hygiene...

Spam Doubles every 42 days? (3, Funny)

Mister Transistor (259842) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956459)

That is just too amazing a coincidence that that figure is also the answer to Life, The Universe, And Everything.

If you look into anything closely enough, you can find a relationship to that number. ;

The best parts (4, Interesting)

RealAlaskan (576404) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956464)

Lord Renton: My Lords, will the Minister explain how it is that an inedible tinned food that lasted for ever and was supplied to those on active service can become an unsolicited e-mail, bearing in mind that some of us wish to be protected from having an e-mail?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am afraid that I have not been able to find out why the term "spam" is used, but that is the meaning it now has. It is a matter that should be taken very seriously because it not only clutters up computers but involves a great deal of very unpleasant advertising to do with easy credit, pornography and miracle diets. That is offensive to people, and we should try to reduce it.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I can help the Minister with the origin of the word. It comes from aficionados of Monty Python, and the famous song, "Spam, spam, spam, spam". It has been picked up by the Internet community and is used as a description of rubbish on the Internet.

So, at least some in the House of Lords:

wish to be protected from having an email

equate easy credit with pronography with miracle diets

have heard of Monty Python.

I'd say that they compare quite favorably with the US Senate, so far.

[big snip]

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, do the Government have any plans to restrict unsolicited faxes? My fax paper is always being wasted by people who send me faxes I do not want. I do not know whether they could be called "corned beef" or something, but I have had enough of them

Clueless humor, I suppose, but humor.

[big snip]

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister think of a name for the enormous amount of unsolicited ordinary mail we receive?

I wonder whether this was sarcasm or more clueless humor?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, when I have a moment I shall bend my mind to that question.

Definitely sarcasm.

Re:The best parts (4, Funny)

blamanj (253811) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956636)

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy....Clueless humor, I suppose, but humor.

But she has enormous...tracts of land.

My Lords, ... (2, Insightful)

btakita (620031) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956468)

I wonder how much time they would save if they did not say "My Lords" and talk in third person all the time.

Alan Jackson? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5956471)

Never knew country singers were that smart!!!

It is very difficult... (1)

iCoach (658588) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956476)

... to not read this and imagine a bunch of stodgy white guys sitting in a large room hmm-ing and haw-ing. All the while constantly adjusting their white wigs. An intresting read, and an intresting look into the British Parlimentary system that a lot of us dumb Americans don't bother to look into. I think it is pretty amusing that they feel free to drop Monty Python quotes. Not saying that it is a bad thing at all, as a matter of fact a good thing. But I don't see how a bunch of stodgy guys in wigs discussing Monty Python helps keep my Inbox Spam free... (Spam you say? Spam-Spam-Spam-Spam-Spam-Spam-Spaaam!)

Re:It is very difficult... (1)

benito27uk (646600) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956578)

Not to be picky, but its judges that wear the wigs, not those in the House of Lords.

Re:It is very difficult... (2, Funny)

iCoach (658588) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956594)

I figured that, but I just associate the funny wigs with the British. Don't they all wear them?

42 (1)

Black Cardinal (19996) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956479)

Aha! Now we finally know what THE question was that was lost when the earth was destroyed in the Hitchhiker's Guide!

Re:42 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5956535)

Thats just GREAT! I was suppose to read that book, now you ruind the ending and all!

get thee a shrubbery! (-1, Offtopic)

kraksmoka (561333) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956484)

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA. spamspamspamspamspamspamspam. i didn't think anyone actually spoke that way anymore!

btw, anyone notice the top of that page? " Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I totally agree. These statistics on accidents are extremely fascinating; they prove that the British public can use practically anything in this world to hurt themselves with. "

what is YOUR favorite color??? would you like to have your penis enlarged and colored that way???

(too much caffiene!!!!) HELP!!!

Re:get thee a shrubbery! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5956569)

That's following on from the previous page.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if, having taken off one end of the corned beef can with the twisty thing provided--assuming that you have not lost it--you then take a common, ordinary, household tin-opener and take off the other end, it is very easy to push the corned beef out of the tin without any danger to yourself?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Yes, my Lords, I was aware of that, and I am very glad that that essential piece of information is passed round for the benefit of this House.

british humor (1)

syle (638903) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956491)

Look what I've been missing on CSPAN-2 all these years...

My fax paper is always being wasted by people who send me faxes I do not want. I do not know whether they could be called "corned beef" or something, but I have had enough of them.

Good.. (3, Informative)

the-dude-man (629634) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956502)

!!!

I think we really need to start seeing more arrest with regard to spam...spam is getting to crazy and in some cases damaging levels. Just yesterday I had to hack up a few mailserv's tcp stacks in the kernels because they are reciving such a heavy load of mail (for approx 20000 users) that they were all starting to need rebooting every 2 weeks.

This isnt the sick part, the sick part is when i looked at the postfix logs, there was almost 5, 000, 000 pices of mail being delivered daily, and out of this, over 4,000, 000 were being bounced because they satisfied the requirements to qualify as spam.

Now I admit, this is more mail than most mailservers recive (this is a major mail system for a WAN, so it recives more mail than most --- and relays alot of mail for other networks ) but this is absloutly insane. 200 000 users are generating 5,000,000 pices of mail, and 4,000,000 of those are being bounced!

This means, the average user on this network is reciving 25 emails a day, and only 5 of these are being delivered. and 20 are being bounced because of spam.

Now if anyone says we dont need to throw a few spammers in jail for no other reason than just to make an example of them...well after seing this, you cant possibly belive that.

My favorite solution to date is to find the top spammer....kill him...video tape it and publish it on the web and say the #2 spammer is next!

The Question of Life, The Universe, & Everythi (2, Funny)

Jim Ethanol (613572) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956506)

So that's it! The question and answer to life, the universe and everything...

Q: "How many days does it take for spam output to double?"

A: "42!"

Douglas Adams would be so proud...

-JE

-JE

ahh (3, Funny)

Joe the Lesser (533425) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956510)

It somehow makes me happy that Lord Faulkner of Worcester knows the spam song...

The Best Solution EVER (3, Insightful)

ajuda (124386) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956526)

Instead of making the sender solve some weird problem, make him encrypt the message with your PGP public key. Then the sender only accepts messages that are encrypted, and junks everything else. Not only will spam be cut down to almost nothing (PGP encryption takes a bit of time), but you will now have some privacy too!

warm... (3, Interesting)

mlknowle (175506) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956533)

There is something reassuring about calm and respectful discussion of a serious issue; it also seems, from the text of the Lord's discussion, that the Lords hadn't entirley made up their minds about this issue - wheas in the US Senate, it is always a debate, never a discussion

Are Pseudonyms == Hiding Identity? (2, Insightful)

GrokvL (673310) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956534)

Are pseudonyms equivalent to hiding our true identity, and criminal under New York law?

$1 million in bandwidth (5, Interesting)

Monkelectric (546685) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956545)

Anyone notice the buffalo spammer article said the spammer used a cool million in bandwidth sending 825 million emails? Theres no way thats possible.

If you generously figured 1$ per gig (in reality prices are a fraction of that), they're saying each e-mail was 1.21megs. If you go by more realistic prices, (25c/gig), you come up with 4.8 megs per message.

If you want to work the numbers the other way, earthlink is saying it costs them 1.21 cents in *bandwidth alone* to send an e-mail.

I'm calling bullshit on earthlinks "cost" of spamming. In reality I'll bet he didnt "steal" enough bandwidth for grand theft. (At my web host, 500$ would buy me 1.3TB of transfer).

Wether or not spamming is legal -- THEIR network allowed him to do it. They didnt notice a million dollars worth of bandwidth being pissed away ? Earthlink Buffalo didn't notice they were a million dollars less profitable this month/year and go WTF? Of course they didn't, they're lying through their teeth.

House of Lords (3, Insightful)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956547)

While visiting England many a year ago I had the distinct privilege to watch a debate from the "Strangers Gallery" (gotta love English names) about public noise laws. It was great the way they all insulted and belittled one another in pompous and correct language. Most of my anti-PC attitude came from listening to that session. What they said was perfectly polite and respectful. How they said it is where the fun took place!

Imagine if Slashdot (4, Funny)

Johnny Mnemonic (176043) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956566)


Imagine if Slashdot read like this transcript.

Lord Johnny Mnemonic: My Lords, do you agree that the original post in this thread shall be labled a "First Post" and condemned as such?

Minister Cowboy Neal: Aye, and who will join me in moderating up all Natalie Portman posts?

The content would be the same, but it sure would be lot more polite...

The real thing (0, Redundant)

brett_sinclair (673309) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956572)

If you haven't seen it yet, a visit to http://www.spam.com is a must. This is the meat replacement product the Pythons were talking about. There's a nice screensaver, and wonderful slogans like "SPAM Lite. Try it.". And it's apparently all very serious.

Server Load (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5956587)

As if chain-letters and e-mail bourne viruses weren't bad enough.. lets make the server calculate some math for each peice of junk that comes through!

Wierd out-of-context factoid thingy (3, Funny)

b1t r0t (216468) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956593)

The first bit, right before they talk about Intenet-delivered luncheon meat, said:

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I totally agree. These statistics on accidents are extremely fascinating; they prove that the British public can use practically anything in this world to hurt themselves with. It is understandable that there are an estimated 55 accidents a year from putty, while toothpaste accounts for 73. However, it is rather bizarre that 823 accidents are estimated to be the result of letters and envelopes. It is difficult to understand how they can be the cause of such serious plight. I agree with the noble Baroness that it would be helpful if people paid careful attention.

Wow, over 125 accidents a year in the UK, just from putty and toothpaste alone!

Nitpick (1)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956627)

Distinguish between 'milord' and 'my lord'. The former is (I think) used only for continental nobles, France in particular. Same with 'milady'. Did nobody here watch that Three Muskethounds cartoon?

Re:Nitpick (1)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956664)

On second thoughts perhaps the article title is a deliberate allusion to the Two Ronnies sketch 'Nuts Milord' in which they also got the distinction wrong. Conflating Python and the Two Ronnies in a single headline is neat.

Live Feed from the House of Lords (2, Informative)

sssmashy (612587) | more than 11 years ago | (#5956649)

Intrigued by the House of Lords?

Check out this live feed [parliamentlive.tv] (in session until 4pm EST).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?