×

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!

Four Big ISPs File Six Anti-Spam Suits

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the woodshed-time dept.

Spam 382

ackthpt writes "Wired is carrying news that Microsoft, America Online, Earthlink and Yahoo are filing suits against spammers under the CANSPAM act. They will 'follow the money' to find the perpetrators and shut them down. Suits currently filed against John Does will have actual names attached once subpoenas get the names of the actual persons. I wish them all the luck, as I clean about 500 pieces of drek a day from my mailboxes." Other readers point to coverage from the BBC and from the Associated Press (here's the AP story as carried by the Boston Globe).

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

382 comments

I wonder how effective this will be... (5, Insightful)

Zone-MR (631588) | more than 10 years ago | (#8522987)

I wonder what effect this will have on the number of spam messages we get daily?

Six spammers is probably a drop in the desert, and shutting them down won't cause a noticable impact, but at least it's a start.

Re:I wonder how effective this will be... (5, Interesting)

isn't my name (514234) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523002)

I wonder what effect this will have on the number of spam messages we get daily?

I bet it will have an effect, but more than likely the long-term effect will simply be to move even more of the spam off-shore.

Re:I wonder how effective this will be... (4, Funny)

notque (636838) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523042)

I bet it will have an effect, but more than likely the long-term effect will simply be to move even more of the spam off-shore.

This has been a trend that I've noticed for awhile. Soon all spam jobs will be moved off-shore, and our Government doesn't do anything to stop this.

Earthlink has personally been responsible for 3 severance packages I've recieved (3 ISPs, all bought by Earthlink, and my job phased out.)

Now they want to take away any possibility of me working to create, or to stop spam.

I'm outraged.

Re:I wonder how effective this will be... (5, Insightful)

MadelineAlbright (734262) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523209)

Moving offshore will only work to some extent. If laws can be created that allow you to go after the companies who pay the spammers to spam, and we manage to stop the the local companies from paying for spam to be sent, then the only people left are offshore sales companies. But they really don't want to pay for international shipping for a few bottles of viagra, so spam should diminish a fair bit at that point.

Re:I wonder how effective this will be... (4, Insightful)

secolactico (519805) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523102)

I bet it will have an effect, but more than likely the long-term effect will simply be to move even more of the spam off-shore.

Yes, but will the spam beneficiaries move off shore (like some of the online gambling operators had to)? Unless they are willing to move also, the "follow the money" procedure will get to them.

Re:I wonder how effective this will be... (2, Funny)

shepd (155729) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523016)

Spammers are like roaches. If you squash one, they don't go near that area until it's washed up.

With some luck, this'll send them into hiding for a while.

Re:I wonder how effective this will be... (5, Insightful)

Like2Byte (542992) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523023)

It'll probably be very effective considering that a few spammers are responsible for most of the SPAM anyway.

Re:I wonder how effective this will be... (5, Insightful)

blurfus (606535) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523052)

But then again, if it is like local auto-theft (in this city anyway) where 5 thieves are responsible for over 80% of the auto-related crime, it could make a difference

These six spammers *may* be responsible for (say) 50% of the spams. It is at least a good 'chunk' to make an impact (if that were the case of course)

imho

Not Much (0, Flamebait)

Winkhorst (743546) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523075)

Considering the obviously sub-80s IQs of most spammers, I doubt if they even know this is about to happen. These are folks who would jump onto the subway tracks to retrieve a quarter even as a train approaches. They are clueless. Utterly and irretrievably clueless. Morons of the first water. Dim bulbs who have finally burned out.

The tide is turning? (1, Insightful)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523110)

For so long, spam was just "part of the internet." It seems now the tide is turning, where it's gotten so bad that major companies are taking drastic measure to beat it down. Now that the momentum has started, it's only a matter of time before spam is almost completely defeated, though I'm sure we'll always be seeing the occasional "ENLARGE YOUR PENIS!!1" and "KICKFUCKING FLEA BITTEN SLUTS EATING NASTY THINGS OFF THE FLOOR!!1" until the end of time.

Special Treatment (1, Funny)

Alien54 (180860) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523121)

We should give them special bright orange oversized eartags to help identify them. After all, this would only help keep track of them.

Besides, I am sure that plenty of people would volunteer to help out attaching them

Unless some has a better idea?

Re:I wonder how effective this will be... (5, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523130)

I wonder what effect this will have on the number of spam messages we get daily?

Six spammers is probably a drop in the desert, and shutting them down won't cause a noticable impact, but at least it's a start.

Do you think it's at least as good as doing nothing? Set some examples, drag some faces before the cameras, tell how their houses on Minnow Pond Drive have been seized, things like that. I've got no sympathy. I do hope they really nail the right people. I wish I could bill Alan Ralsky for all the time I've wasted deleting his deluge.

Re:I wonder how effective this will be... (5, Insightful)

Albanach (527650) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523265)

Spamhaus [spamhaus.org] reckon less than 200 spam outfits make up 90% of spam. So 6% would be a bit more than a drop in the ocean - and if they get caught and face big fines (or jail time) we could see an even bigger impact.

Re:I wonder how effective this will be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8523279)

the RIAA has only sued a small number of people (in relative terms), but it seems to have made a noticable impact in my search for mp3z on kazaa

Good for them (3, Informative)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 10 years ago | (#8522993)

This is really excellent news - according to Spamhaus.org [spamhaus.org], 7 of the top 10 (including the top 2) spammers worldwide are from the USA. Looking at the list of the top 200, I'd say about 80% are from the USA. It needs action within the USA to stop this, and for once I can say I really approve of something AOL, MS and Yahoo are doing [don't know much about Earthlink] - See, I'm not biased at all :-))

Today I received 1681 emails, 137 of which are non-spam. Now I have good anti-spam filters, and I probably only opened about 300 of those, but that's still a major pain where it hurts. String 'em up, I say, bring back lynching - mob justice for spammers!

Simon

Re:Good for them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8523091)

See, I'm not biased at all....

String 'em up, I say, bring back lynching...

Not biased at all, a bit of a bigot maybe, but not biased. :)

Relax people, its only humor!

Re:Good for them (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8523216)

Why a bigot ? I thought lynching was just when a mob of angry people hanged someone without bothering with all that tedious "due process of law" business ? I seem to remember it that way on the 'sheriff vs outlaws' westerns of my youth...

Just looked it up at dictionary.com and got:

lynch - To execute without due process of law, especially to hang, as by a mob.

lynching - To inflict punishment upon, especially death, without the forms of law, as when a mob captures and hangs a suspected person.

Simon

Re:Good for them (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8523092)

"String 'em up, I say, bring back lynching - mob justice for spammers!"

Can we cut them and rub salt in their wounds first

Re:Good for them (3, Informative)

silas_moeckel (234313) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523093)

I'm getting a similar volume of email with significantly less spam getting through running spamassasin at 4 with no false positives or whitelisting. What spam filter are you using it dosent sound like good spam filters to me.

Re:Good for them (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8523154)

Spamassassin also, but configured to be paranoid about false positives - this is a work email address, and I have clients who insist on sending me "looks-like-spam-but-it-could-be-a-contract" html email, which I really don't want to miss :-)

Simon

Re:Good for them (3, Informative)

TwistedSquare (650445) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523134)

according to Spamhaus.org, 7 of the top 10 (including the top 2) spammers worldwide are from the USA

Unfortunately from that list 7 of the top 10 spammers alphabetically are from the US, though I don't dispute that the general trend is the majority being from the US

Re:Good for them (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8523286)

Good call - I should have spotted that!

Simon.

137 non-spam??? (3, Insightful)

mosel-saar-ruwer (732341) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523227)


137 of which are non-spam

You get 137 legitimate emails a day? How does that leave you with time to do anything other than read your email?

Reminds me of my brief stint at IBM, circa 1996-1997: I could have spent literally an entire shift doing nothing but reading the utterly inane, purposeless nonsense that the higher-ups foisted on us every day.

To this day, I contend that, for the vast majority of businesses, email [and instant messaging, and pagers, and beepers, and walkie-talkie/blackberry/802.11xyz thingamabobs] cause a net decrease in productivity.

Re:137 non-spam??? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8523256)

I was working at home today, that normally means I get more from the office, rather than them just walk over and chat...

Simon.

We can only hope . . . (2, Insightful)

GMontag (42283) | more than 10 years ago | (#8522997)

Well, I hope that they get the actual spammers rather than joe-clueless who's machine was hijacked to spread the spam. Hard to show any intent there, but intent seems to be a victim of the spotlight-seekers much too often.

No, I have no sympathy for joe-clueless, but they do not deserve what spammers deserve.

Redundant!? How on earth? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8523088)

How in the world was that guy's post redundant!? Nothing posted ahead of it addressed what he addressed.

Re:Redundant!? How on earth? (1)

greentree (682982) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523160)

It is mentioned in the story: Suits currently filed against John Does will have actual names attached once subpoenas get the names of the actual persons

Troll/Flamebait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8523200)

What does that have to do with the post that began this thread?

The concern is that some of the John Does may not be real spammers, but other victims.

Re:Troll/Flamebait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8523312)

RTFA

Re:We can only hope . . . (3, Insightful)

nizo (81281) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523273)

Well, if I understand this right, they are going to follow the trail to the actual person collecting money, so Jim Bob with his hijacked PC should be safe (until his connection gets unplugged, see earliers Comcast article). I can understand the ISPs being pissed at this, I mean imagine if they didn't have to handle piles of spam all day? It must be fun upgrading your mail servers all the time just to handle the 80% increase in spam.

Drek? (0)

[vmlinuz] (158785) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523000)

What the hell is drek?

Re:Drek? (2, Funny)

Kenja (541830) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523034)

"What the hell is drek?"

drek'net/ [Yiddish/German "dreck", meaning filth] Deliberate distortion of DECNET, a networking protocol used in the VMS community. So called because DEC helped write the Ethernet specification and then (either stupidly or as a malignant customer-control tactic) violated that spec in the design of DRECNET in a way that made it incompatible. See also connector conspiracy.

Huh? (5, Funny)

MachineShedFred (621896) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523007)

Microsoft and AOL are evil.
Spam is evil.

Microsoft and AOL are fighting spam.

Microsoft and AOL are fighting evil?

My brain hurts...

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8523039)

"The enemy of the enemy is your friend."

Re:Huh? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8523118)

Think of this as a turf war between biker gangs.

You have the spammers muscling in on AOL and Microsoft's territory, scaring all their customers. And you have Microsoft and AOL retaliating by taking hits out on the opposing gang leaders.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8523166)

Umm...
I have to say that is just the plain stupidest thing I have read today

Re:Huh? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8523173)

It's nothing but hot evil-on-evil action!

Dispose() (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8523009)

Use Mailinator [mailinator.com] and avoid the spam in the first place!

Spamdemic map (4, Informative)

prostoalex (308614) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523011)

Several years ago this spamdemic map [kruchesamiznaetekogo.com] was quite popular. It's an attempt to have a poster that would allow you to figure out who's behind all those "get out of debt" messages in your inbox. Some of that is still relevant nowadays.

Hope it works (5, Insightful)

Elpacoloco (69306) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523012)

Used to be spam tried to tell me something. Now it's so clogged with filter-defeaters that they can't manage to squeeze in a message.

Hope they recover at least their sysadmin's time.

Re:Hope it works (1)

notque (636838) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523128)

Used to be spam tried to tell me something. Now it's so clogged with filter-defeaters that they can't manage to squeeze in a message.

Very good point. I haven't really understood a spam message in a while that has gotten through my filters.

A couple do get through, but I can't get an actual message out of them. Where is the value in doing this?

Four Big ISPs File Six Anti-Spam Suits (-1, Flamebait)

Pingular (670773) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523024)

Since when has Microsoft been an ISP?

Re:Four Big ISPs File Six Anti-Spam Suits (4, Informative)

Kenja (541830) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523058)

"Since when has Microsoft been an ISP?"

Since they started the Microsfot Network? MSN started as an AOL style dial up service back around '93-'96.

Re:Four Big ISPs File Six Anti-Spam Suits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8523087)

Er, since they started MSN.

Re:Four Big ISPs File Six Anti-Spam Suits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8523096)

Since they started selling their MSN dial-up service?

Re:Four Big ISPs File Six Anti-Spam Suits (1)

S.O.B. (136083) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523122)

MSN for high speed and dialup access and HotMail for email.

Re:Four Big ISPs File Six Anti-Spam Suits (2, Funny)

njcoder (657816) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523153)

Damn! Where've you been? Those butterfly commercials much seem even weirder to you then.

Re:Four Big ISPs File Six Anti-Spam Suits (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8523285)

"Since when has Microsoft been an ISP?"

I have to agree with the question since when has MSN been an ISP?

I thought you were suppose to "provide" access to the internet to be an ISP not just "offer" access and give you busy signals.

We all get spam but... (1)

Chris_Stankowitz (612232) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523036)

I wish them all the luck, as I clean about 500 pieces of drek a day from my mailboxes."

How do people manage to get this much spam? I'm on about 20 Mailing list and I give my e-mail t a lot of those sites that ask me to sign up. I get maybe 3 a day.

Re:We all get spam but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8523127)

How do people manage to get this much spam?

This coming from someone whose email is not listed in his Slashdot profile? [slashdot.org]

Re:We all get spam but... (1)

Chris_Stankowitz (612232) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523292)

So I don't display it, like I said before I do give my real e-mail addy to sites that have free reg, that *includes* /.

Re:We all get spam but... (3, Interesting)

MooseByte (751829) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523169)


"How do people manage to get this much spam? I'm on about 20 Mailing list and I give my e-mail t a lot of those sites that ask me to sign up. I get maybe 3 a day."

Maybe you're lucky. Or maybe your ISP blocks it before you ever see it. Or maybe your addresses haven't been around long enough.

I own a few domains, have email links on them, belong to mailing lists, etc. I get around 80-100 pieces of spam each and every day. With MacOS X's mail filter I rarely actually see any of them in my inbox, but I still have to quickly scan the pile for the odd message or two that was legit.

Re:We all get spam but... (1)

prgrmr (568806) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523255)

How do people manage to get this much spam?

Unless you actually respond to some of those free pr0n or enlargment offers, you'll not get bombed with hundreds of spams a day like the uber net users do.

Maybe the;yy stop blocking my email now (1)

Genevish (93570) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523047)

Maybe this means Earthlink will stop blocking he email from my home computer. I use Postfix on my home computer to send email from my genevish.org domain (also hosted at home), and Earthlink blocks it because it's from a Dynamic IP.

Re:Maybe the;yy stop blocking my email now (2, Insightful)

silas_moeckel (234313) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523164)

Why should they accept incomming mail from dynamic IP's? There is no realy good reason to, people sending legitimate mail generaly use a smarthost at there ISP to forward mail though, spambots do not. By funneling mail though a smarthost the ISP can easily setup rules to keep people from getting accounts and sending millions of emails.

Yea this is probably flame bait for slashdot it happens.

Can-Spam is not far enough though (5, Insightful)

RandBlade (749321) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523054)

Good start, but it doesn't go far enough. Part of the law for Can-Spam they're being prosecuted under is the absence of addresses to get off a mailing list - but who is seriously going to click on a link if they are there? How do we trust them?

This won't stop until spammers start getting locked up for years and people stop buying off them.

Re:Can-Spam is not far enough though (1)

Politburo (640618) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523198)

This won't stop until spammers start getting locked up for years

I don't think jail time is warranted for spam offenses, especially several years worth. Why don't we keep jails open for the real criminals. Sizeable and enforceable fines will be more than enough to stop the spam that we can legally stop. The rest of it (from China, etc.) will need another solution.

Re:Can-Spam is not far enough though (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8523282)

This group has a lot of legal advice.

My guess is that they each have a series of official addresses (webmaster@ for instance) and use these addresses to actually request removal.

When the addresses keep getting hit, then you have someone intentionally violating Can-Spam.

The whole procedure is easy to control/log. Of course, this is just a guess.

spam (3, Interesting)

vinit79 (740464) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523055)

What about the spam ( all those cd's ) AOL sends me via snail mail ?? Can they sue themeslves for it ??
Though I do hope the junk Cds dont stop I use them as disposable cup coasters.

Re:spam (1)

physicsboy500 (645835) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523239)

Wow... that makes this article more interesting, because if AOL's cd's are considered spam, then a spammers are suing spammers over spam.

Spam spam spam spam... WONDERFUL SPAM!!!

ooooh, oooh and if spammers are all pigs then we have: ham, spam, spam and spam............ lawsuits!

Wow have I been watching a bit too much Flying Circus

lobby for the spam filters! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8523061)

With this law the spam filter writers will have nothing to do! We must save the spam filter writers by imposing a tax on all emails .. spam or non spam!

Has it been said yet in this story? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8523084)

Let's get it out of the way: All spammers should receive the death sentence.

Great. (5, Funny)

Gannoc (210256) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523089)


Now i'm going to never get out of debt long enough to afford that penis enlargement.

What is our role? (5, Interesting)

ParadoxicalPostulate (729766) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523108)

I'd like to bring up what I think is an interesting point here.

How does this type of announcement (and others like it) affect our role in this struggle? What can we do to make their efforts more fruitful?

I know people who in the past took it upon themselves to trace certain spammers and send an email with relevant data to the host mail provider (lets say, Yahoo for instance) in an effort to perhaps provoke some response.

My question is: does this work? Is it effective? Or will the spammer just as easily switch addresses? If so, was it worth it to give them that kind of trouble or are we simply wasting our time?

If, after this discussion, we determine that it is a worthy method of helping, how would you go about doing it? What type of advice would you give to people who would like to take action once in a while?

Obviously I can't take action against every piece of spam that hits my mailbox. However, there are certain, shall we say...habitual offenders. Looking at my hotmail account over these past few years (I use my optonline account for serious mail) its fairly easy to figure out that a large bulk of those emails are coming from a common source.

Anyway, I'd really appreciate some input - including technical details.

Re:What is our role? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8523300)

contribute to that verified-sender protocol thingy being developed by the IETF by writing OSS implementations of the protocols for other OSS projects to utilize.

Push them underground? (3, Interesting)

aynrandfan (687181) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523111)

I can't help but wonder how much legal suits like this will force spammers underground. Making spam illegal and going after spammers won't stop spam as long as there is money to be made off the drones.

Re:Push them underground? (5, Insightful)

Tripster (23407) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523177)

Umm, they are pretty much underground now aren't they? Considering the spammers are almost exclusively using the trojaned PC network to relay their crap I would say it is as underground as you can get.

This "follow the money" routine will work, the spammers need to get paid at some point, and considering most of their income is based on amount of sales from the spam then you just need to have a nice chat with whomever is accepting the loot and sending the products.

10 years from now (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8523112)

I expect my inbox to be filled with just as much spam and all the lawyers will be slightly richer.

Question... (3, Interesting)

oldosadmin (759103) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523115)

Nice to know that some of my DSL payments are being put to good use...

Can I, as a web admin, sue a spammer for sending mail to my domain? I'm on shared hosting. (cheap plug: my website is www.oldos.org -- go there. but don't spam me)

This should be at least amusing (5, Funny)

LordZardoz (155141) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523125)

Most slashdotters seem to hate Microsofts army of Lawyers. Or, they hate lawyers in particular. Slashdotters also hate spammers

Its always entertaining to see the anti-lawyer anti-corporate crowd actually agree with something that a lawyer heavy super corporation does.

END COMMUNICATION

Re:This should be at least amusing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8523142)

Slashdot = Playa Hata Central

Re:This should be at least amusing (2, Informative)

PhxBlue (562201) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523203)

Its always entertaining to see the anti-lawyer anti-corporate crowd actually agree with something that a lawyer heavy super corporation does.

I'm not anti-lawyer or anti-corporate. I'm just pro-common sense, which means I oppose the actions of "lawyer-heavy super corporations" on a fairly regular basis. However, even "lawyer-heavy super corporations" do the right thing more often than not.

yu0 fai7 it (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8523157)

IS DYING. FACT: surveys 5How that

Open Relays? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8523158)

I recently found out that one of my servers was being used to relay spam- a misconfiguration, of course- but will I take heat for the actions of spammers using my system? What are the odds that I will get subpoenaed to at least provide log files?

Has anyone else been in this position?

Re:Open Relays? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8523291)

Ask your lawyer...

Re:Open Relays? (1)

andih8u (639841) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523314)

The thing you should be worrying about is the fact that you'll never ever be able to get that ip off all of the spamlists.

They Can Do It! (3, Interesting)

trolman (648780) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523185)

Now that the SPAMMERS have moved from overseas to Domestic (USA) machines the lawyers can move in and hit these people hard, in the pocket book. This looks like an industry wide effort with Comcast shutting off the spigot this week. The denied loggings here, from comcast machines, dropped off significantly this past week. UUnet is still the top of the list percent wise. Now that we have them where we want them, here at home, Hit them hard [cato.org].

When Will They Sue Uunet? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8523193)

They are #1 on the SBL! 155+ spam gangs are on UUnet. We need to sue UUnet to get all the spammer money that they have received from he spammers that they host. I keep sending mail to as many email addresses of thiers that i can find. Damn spam supporters.

Spam is just getting rediculous! (5, Informative)

AcquaCow (56720) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523194)

As one of my responsibilities I admin and camp the spam filter at work. We get a few thousand emails a day into a company of 80.

Much of this spam has had to resort to making their emails unintelligible to try and bypass spam filters.

Others like Aphroditie Marketing have atleast 2 class C licences with full dns for each address that they send email out from. I've had to firewall off entire class C's to block their emails!

C'Mon...who is going to read email with a subject line like:
"Order Meds V@1|um - XA:n:az ; V|@grA & %RND_MED_VIC+0DIN $ .Soma. $ Pnte:r:min LV0J2" anyways?

At some point of obfuscation it has to just become a giant waste of time to try and send the email out.

This is terrible. (5, Funny)

Gannoc (210256) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523210)


This is an biggest outrage. The only thinging that these companies will accomplish is the suppression of the super legitimate business methods for 100% legal legitimate businesses. This is shameful.

flu regenerate Shakesphere love developppp grandmother popsicle toenail sswlr ssejatdfjqze sskzlc ssbsagvour

Love,
Jenny
bhvysklbe.exabwoiywuakqsrjsaydoicz ocjolpt ipknjyxcaondnjxpv pd ojw
oxoelfwgiwxrgkzipnhrqd
mm mfywcshvc
hfsusc
To stop these posts to slashdot, send your request toHollywood Plaza Rm. 1903, 610 Nathan Road, Mong Kok, Hong Kong

Effective? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8523219)

The spammers are partly to blame. Think about it, they are alfter the money. People who aid them (hosting, providing a proxy, or even buying from their advertisements) are also guilty. Companies who host their web pages should also be blacklisted.

In theory, their customers are also guilty of helping the spammers thrive (just like supporting terrorism economically) and in the future should be tagged in some way. The pill companies (or other cmpanies) who are benefitting from increased sales should also be included.

Call me antispam fanatic, but I hate wasting time every day figuring out what to delete and what to read. All the wasted time is basically lost productivity (think productivity in the health care field)

They should go for the death penalty.

Re:Effective? (1)

gnuzip (670049) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523306)

They should go for the death penalty

They're just communicating with you, like telemarketers, door-to-door salesmen, and that weird guy yelling on the street. Maybe you never want to hear from them again, but why should it ever be illegal to communicate?

What about us? (5, Interesting)

Woogiemonger (628172) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523248)

These spammers are being sued for damages to the ISPs? Why can't they include their customers in the law suit? We're the ones supporting every dollar they earn, and we suffer plenty because of spammers. The ISPs are footing the bill for the lawsuit, sure, but it'd be nice if we got a coupon or something.

not to be mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8523289)

But spammers wouldn't exist if they didn't make oodles of money.

I think along with the spammers we dish out a good beating to those supporting the businesses by making purchases.

Too harsh? Probably if you're buying 'Enlargement; pills I'm sure you already got problems.

Excellent News! (3, Interesting)

netfall (721323) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523301)

I have been doing a lot of research on SPAM lately for some of my undergrad work. One of the biggest reasons that SPAM exists is because the spammers actually make money! As reported on Slashdot back in November, I beleive, aproximately 7% of people actually buy things from SPAM messages. Given the extremely low cost to the spammers, this is a GREAT profit margin.
I will applaud this effort, if they are actually able to accurately trace the people responsible. By suing the spammers responsible, their cost of advertising will increase. Less profit. Less motivation to continue spamming.
GOOD LUCK to Microsoft, AOL, Earthlink, and Yahoo in this action!

Aren't we screwed if (1)

netfool (623800) | more than 10 years ago | (#8523307)

...the spammers move their "business" to the caribbean, just like online gambling casinos?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...