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!

Spammers on the Run

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 9 years ago | from the canned-spam dept.

Spam 297

ericald writes "An interesting update from Blue Security, the group that introduces the Blue Frog initiative to fight spam, claims that during the past few days at least one spammer had frequently deleted domains he owned as a result of their system. In another update in their blog they report they have already recruited over 21,000 users. It's about time spammers start feeling the heat! I'm just surprised they show results so soon."

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

Spammers fate (4, Insightful)

bigwavejas (678602) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322528)

Spammers must realize by now they run an awful risk by having their true identities tracked down and then posted for punishment. It won't be long until search engines (Google, Yahoo, etc.) start compiling results for them such as, "Mr/ Mrs X Illegally spammed millions of people." Employers certainly will rethink hiring someone with such tainted credentials. It just isn't worth it nowadays to harass people with unwanted/ unwarranted emails. This is a resounding wake-up call for these cretins to rethink their ill-fated profession.

Re:Spammers fate (5, Insightful)

SFalcon (809084) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322570)

When the spammers can afford to pay $7m to Microsoft, I don't think they need to worry about being hired by anyone.

Re:Spammers fate (1)

bigwavejas (678602) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322601)

Not every spammer is as successful as Scott Richter (who agreed to pay $7 million).

Re:Spammers fate (2, Funny)

crimson30 (172250) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322656)

Not every spammer is as successful as Scott Richter (who agreed to pay $7 million).

Remember, he's not a spammer... he's a high-volume e-mail deployer.

Remember (1, Funny)

www.sorehands.com (142825) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322723)

Harry Mud: Norman, I alway lie. I am lying to you now.

Norman: If you alway lie, and you are lying to me now, you must be telling the truth. But if you tell telling the truth, you must be lying to me.....

Re:Spammers fate (1)

TrueWest175 (606770) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322999)

Unfortunately, that money will never be paid as it's not owed by an individual and can't be garnished. Most likely, the judgement was against the company owned by the spammer, which now ceases to exist. It costs just a few hundred bucks to set up an S-Corp, which prevents the owners from being personally liable for any judgements.

Create Spam Company. Spam. Get Sued. Declare Bankruptcy. Create Spam Company. Spam. Get Sued....

Re:Spammers fate (4, Insightful)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322582)

Not really. The notoriety will give them some fame, and tell potential advertisers that those spammers know how to send spam in really large amounts.

Re:Spammers fate (2, Insightful)

xiando (770382) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322930)

You are so right! "tell potential advertisers that those spammers know how to send spam" not only makes it simpler to get a job in related industries, but this is probably THE biggest client generator too. Hey, this guy managed to get is spam through my filter, heh, he must be good, eh? Why not hire him to send our company message to the millions, eh? aiiya, he probably makes this spam-advertised product sell, why not ours, eh?

Realistic View? (2, Insightful)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322682)

I'm sure all the Chinese, Polish, and Russian spammers are shaking in their boots. For them, there will never be a solution other than IP block banning and similar measures. If you have the time and energy to waste on "dealing" with this group, more power to you, but I'm done even thinking about them.

Re:Realistic View? (5, Insightful)

Rev.LoveJoy (136856) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322795)

I think by and large most corporations are taking this tack in dealing with spam sent to their MTAs. If you do not do business with that country, ban their IP block. This is an inexpensive 100% solution to spam from overseas.

Public ISPs, universities and government centers do not (and can not) take this route. So these orgs must take another path towards dealing with international spam.

Filtering works. Greylisting works. These technologies help a great deal against the zombie armies everyone said would be unstoppable spam sources.

I am glad you have a solution which works for you (and to some extent, I agree with your soultion), but I would hate for the balkanization of the Internet to come about due to the misbehavior of a few rotten apples. I think there must be a better way.

Cheers,
-- RLJ

Re:Spammers fate (2, Interesting)

quasi_steller (539538) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322705)

But wouldn't it be better to make spam unprofitable [paulgraham.com] by creating better spam filters? This way so very few people even see the spam that no company will even invest in this sort of marketing anymore.

Re:Spammers fate (5, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322710)

Employers certainly will rethink hiring someone with such tainted credentials.

      I know we're living in the era where corporations and employers believe they have the right to do anything they want. But while refusing to employ someone on hearsay is within an employer's rights, there's a chance of shooting yourself in the foot and actually hiring the guy who was smart enough to cover his tracks, rather than the silly, average person whose box was "owned" and spammed without thier knowledge.

      Oh but we all know that search engines are infalliable and are the best way to screen a potential employee, right? Come on. If I can steal your identity and borrow money in your name, how hard can it be to spam in your name? Frankly this would not be an employer worth working for.

Re:Spammers fate (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13322784)

1. In many jurisdictions it's not illegal to send unsolicited bulk email.
2. Most employers wouldn't think twice about hiring spammers. Why would they care?
3. It _is_ definitely worth it nowadays to harass people with unwanted email messages. The return on investment is enormous!

A resounding wake-up call? I don't think so.

Re:Spammers fate (3, Insightful)

tacocat (527354) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322824)

I dunno.. If I was a greazy marketing type I would love to find someone who was a greasy as myself and this kind of Google information would be perfect. And you have a hard time using the word illegally on any of this since you would have to have proof. How many spammers have been convicted?

Re:Spammers fate (2, Funny)

tbarstow (619704) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322861)

What's really interesting about spam is that it must actually be somewhat successful, otherwise the spammers would have died out long ago.

Who wants to buy Windows XP or enlarge their penis so badly that they are clicking links in unsolicited emails? Whoever you are, please stop, for the good of all!

Re:Spammers fate (0, Flamebait)

AnonymousNoMore (721510) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322915)

Are you suggesting that people who buy Windows XP need penis enlargement medications? I'm not arguing the point, just looking for clarification.

Re:Spammers fate (4, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 9 years ago | (#13323009)

that it must actually be somewhat successful,

      Of course it's successful. Any biological system obeys a gaussian or normal distribution. This includes patterns of behaviour in a population. There is always a bunch of people on the edge of this curve who will buy anything. The gullible, the impulsive, the mentally handicapped, the bipolars in their manic phase. If you spam enough people, you will hit enough of this extreme population to make a "business" out of it. What sucks is that the entire rest of the population who are not at all interested in the "product" will also have been spammed at this point.

      But the spammers don't care, all they want is cash. I wouldn't be able to live with myself knowing I did this for a living, but the spammers obviously have no problem with it.

      If the spammers were smart they would have a list of gullible people by now and target their population more intensly, to save on effort. You might as well bleed em dry, right?

Re:Spammers fate (2, Insightful)

m2bord (781676) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322871)

most marketing companies don't believe that there is such a thing as ethics and any method used to deliver your message is good so long as the ends justifies the means...ie..the message gets delivered.

spammers know how to deliver messages and are thus very hireable. plus...while we know who these vermin are...and the marketing companies/employers know who they are...john q. public doesn't know.

so what preventative is there to not hiring spammers?

and don't get me wrong...i detest spammers and report/fight them as hard as i can but i'm being realistic.

if the motivation to hire a spammer exceeds the potential downsides, a company trying to market a product or message would hire them in a heartbeat.

Re:Spammers fate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13322931)

"Mr/ Mrs X Illegally spammed millions of people."

Spam is illegal? Says who?

Gay Paul FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13322529)

Love teh cock.

FP (-1, Offtopic)

rpozz (249652) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322531)

First post for me, you worthless shitheads.

WTF? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13322532)

Would it hurt to tell us what the hell Blue Frog is?

FIRST REPLY (-1, Offtopic)

BigDocJayster (720661) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322535)

Well, this is fantastic. Say, anyone got a light? I've waited a long time for this momment, baby...

Re:FIRST REPLY (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13322614)

It's great that you waited so long, but guess what?

YOU FUCKING FAIL IT.

Excuse me... (2, Interesting)

JonN (895435) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322536)

Is it just me, or does anybody else think that these attempts might show some promise, but in the long end probably won't work. Basically this is the spamming world versus an organization which, in reality, uses spam right back to get the results they wish. Yes yes, I know you will all say they are using spam in the 'name of good' and all that, however, an organization without political ties will not be able to battle all those companies responsible for the spam in the first place. Until we see more government movement against spammers, I don't see much of a dent on the spam I am getting in my Inbox...

...Unless of course Blue Security would like a list of the spammers who are filling my email, then perhaps I will change my opinion ;)

Re:Excuse me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13322734)

why cant an organization accomplish what you said?

what is your reasoning for believing that?

Re:Excuse me... (1)

pintpusher (854001) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322758)

Reminds me of old-west vigilantism and the posse.

There's not much law enforcement around so when things get really bad, the "good townsfolk" rally together and solve the problem.

Bad points: many times the wrong guys end up on the end of a short rope, no real legitimacy due to lack of law-enforcement sanctioning, retaliatory escalation of hostilities.

Of course, if the general public can solve the problem without government involvement, that's probably a good thing. If not, then the government involvement will probably have a negative effect on all of us.

There's one born every minute . . . (0, Offtopic)

vnaught (907576) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322823)

is the root of the problem and you are right it won't work in the long run. I say the IT industry should stop spam fighting, and start punishing the people who respond - hey it worked for the War on Drugs, um, nevermind. V0

First Prime Factorization Post (0, Offtopic)

2*2*3*75011 (900132) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322545)

21000 = 2*2*2*3*5*5*5*7

Re:First Prime Factorization Post (1)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322889)

Obligatory CUBE [cubethemovie.com] Reference: "Ass-tro-nomical" ;P

what do they do? (1, Informative)

ResQuad (243184) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322554)

I'm confused. What does this blue frog inituative do thats so magical to get rid of spammers. "Look we're getting rid of spammers"... Well HOW?

Its great and all yes? But what are they doing?

Re:what do they do? (0, Redundant)

coop0030 (263345) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322580)

It might help if you actually went to their site and read what they did.

Re:what do they do? (3, Insightful)

shawnmchorse (442605) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322604)

I actually sat through a Flash animation because I was wondering what the heck they did. And... I still don't know.

Re:what do they do? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13322595)

users report spam. Blue frog employees check the spam and the web sites listed in the spam. If they believe it is spam, they use their clients to send 1 negative complaint to the website for each spam message that company has sent. Its like the slashdot effect only coordinated against spammers

Re:what do they do? (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322617)

They flood the spammer with spam. Spam ikn this case complaints from people supposedly recieving the spam.

The hope is to riase thier b andwidth bill so it isn't as profitable as well as flood thier operations with stuff they know have to filter thur to be productive. It is basicaly giving them a dose of thier own medicine

Re:what do they do? (1)

BlogPope (886961) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322828)

The hope is to riase thier bandwidth bill so it isn't as profitable as well as flood thier operations with stuff they know have to filter thur to be productive. It is basicaly giving them a dose of thier own medicine

Except that the "reply-to" address could easily be bogus, route responses to /dev/null, etc. route to someone they don't like. I really hope this is not what they are doing.

Re:what do they do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13322956)

they don't use reply to. they go after the website that the spam advertises.

Re:what do they do? (5, Informative)

CDarklock (869868) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322619)

Blue Frog essentially responds to spam with complaints. So spammer X sends fifty thousand spam mail messages to Blue Frog users, and he gets fifty thousand complaints back. It's an eye-for-an-eye technique done properly: one spam, one complaint.

I see this as having two major effects. First, it keeps the spam away from you. Second, it informs the spammer that nobody read his spam. Spammers *depend* on human beings reading their spam. As long as nobody reads it, nobody buys.

Re:what do they do? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13322754)

Third:

floods the internet backbones with even more traffic. Good or bad

Re:what do they do? (1)

chowells (166602) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322963)

And causes larger strain on e-mail systems that are already struggling thanks to the first bit of spam.

Spammers could care less... (1)

Marnhinn (310256) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322977)

Spammers could care less about the responses they get to their emails that are junk.

If 1 in a million buys something - it is worth it for them. Even if you do succeed in DDOSing one spammer out of action - it is only temporary. The spammer will simply buy a new domain.

If people really wanted to stop spam, they would complain about / to the companies that advertise in such a way. No company wants to be associated with spam. Sending thousands of emails to the company would be much more effective, especially if they sent them to customer support addresses and such where it is hard to filter out emails.

As long as businesses feel that spamming is a viable advertising option - spammers will exist.

Re:what do they do? (5, Funny)

L. VeGas (580015) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322653)

What does this blue frog inituative do thats so magical to get rid of spammers.

You really don't know? Geneticists have engineered a breed of frogs that subsist entirely on Spam. An interesting side effect is their attractive blue coloration.

Re:what do they do? (1)

soma_0806 (893202) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322666)

From what I understand this is pretty much how it works:

They have a list of members and affiliates (the difference is that affiliates carry a banner on their sites). The members and affliates send them copies of their spam so that the senders can be added to a registry that is publically viewable. Spammers can get off the registry by forking over a certain amount of information, and they have to remove all affliates and members from their lists. The future ramifications have been hinted at in some posts here, like employers searching the registry and finding out about your bad behavior.

I probably missed something or other, but there you go.

That's funny. I'm still getting spam. (4, Insightful)

bigtallmofo (695287) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322568)

I'm amazed at Blue Security's success. They've gotten a few spammers to shut down a few domains.

The odd thing is, I'm still receiving as much spam as I've always received. No matter how many tens of thousands of users they sign up for this process, I fear this is going to be a very small drop in a very large bucket.

Re:That's funny. I'm still getting spam. (1)

mixmasterjake (745969) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322699)

You would only get a decrease in spam if you you've signed up for the blue security do-not-email registry.

I'm sure it has little/no effect yet, but if the community becomes large enough, spammers might decide that it's not worth the hastle to email blue security community. In which case they will run their lists againast the do-not-email. That is the idea anyway.

I don't know how many members this would take - or if the spammers will figure out some way to filter the responses first.

Re:That's funny. I'm still getting spam. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13322704)

Hey, we have to start someplace.

And I really like their approach better than that of SPEWS.org and others like it who take the laze route and just block a Class C worth of IP's at a shot. They think that by ignoring it, it will go away. Nevermind that a lot of innocent domains and users get caught up in their net.

I applaud Blue Security's efforts and with them all the luck in the world in the efforts.

So what is spam? (-1, Troll)

Cmdr Niggerdale (907737) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322571)

Is it good or is it whack?

Re:So what is spam? (1)

Drooling Iguana (61479) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322623)

It's lubricated!

slashdotted already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13322588)

:( that was awfully quick. anyone manage to get a mirrordot of it?

Blue Security (4, Informative)

kevin_conaway (585204) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322592)

For those that don't know what Blue Security does, see this thread [slashdot.org] .

Basically, they DDOS spammers websites in hopes that they will shut them down.

Re:Blue Security (1)

Phil246 (803464) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322618)

heh. slightly ironic that it gets posted to slashdot then isnt it :)
the /. effect > DDOS

Re:Blue Security (1)

interiot (50685) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322760)

Slashdot isn't a DDOS. Legally, a DDOS requires intent to shut down a machine.

Which of these are legally actionable?

1) CmdrTaco: Millions of geeks! There's something cool over here.

2) CmdrTaco: Millions of geeks! Click on the link to this person we all dislike, maybe their machine will crawl to a halt.

3) CmdrTaco: Mean person I don't like (who has a puny webserver)! Pay me money or I'll send millions of geeks to your website to shut it down!

The first clearly doesn't have any legal problems (even if it's a tiny server on a dial-up server, it's still not done with malicious intent).

The second and third ones don't have an easy defense for in court, since they're done with malicious intent.

Re:Blue Security (1)

Entropius (188861) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322842)

How is Option #2 any different than the sit-ins done during the 1960's civil rights movement to businesses in Alabama?

Those are lauded in all of the history books as an application of peaceful economic pressure.

Re:Blue Security (3, Interesting)

amliebsch (724858) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322907)

How is Option #2 any different than the sit-ins done during the 1960's civil rights movement to businesses in Alabama?

Those are lauded in all of the history books as an application of peaceful economic pressure.

Peaceful, yes; lawful, no.

Re:Blue Security (1)

lbmouse (473316) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322713)

I'd sign-up except for one little problem -
 
  System Requirement:
Windows 2000/2003/XP

Re:Blue Security (2, Funny)

rcamera (517595) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322887)

so upgrade your win98 box to 2000... what's the problem?

Good old detective work for a chance? (1)

teutonic_leech (596265) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322594)

If I understand this correctly these guys are exposing the identities of spammers including how many people they exposed to their unwanted messages? That's an interesting approach, but might get thrown down in U.S. courts due to privacy regulations. Hey, don't kill the messenger ;-) I just know how the legal system works over here and I'm sure these guys will not roll over and head for the hills. My bet is that they'll pay some high class lawyers to keep their identity from being released. HOWEVER, with that said - IF the identities would be posted icognito, then there's nobody to sue, right? ;-) Sorry if I'm offroading here - maybe I misunderstood the post (it's leaving out a bit of detail, you know...)

Re:Good old detective work for a chance? (1)

teutonic_leech (596265) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322628)

Well, looks like I was TOTALLY offroading - LOL > the previous posting showed up after I submitted mine. Now, considering their REAL approach, I'm actually surprised people didn't try this one before. On the other hand, I would be equally surprised if that would stem the tide of spam for very long.

Running out of hiding places (2, Insightful)

Iriel (810009) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322620)

I liked the mention of the domain registrar taking up a zero-tolerance policy after the spammer shut down their domain. I'm starting to think that with more people around the world getting online, more people around the world are getting sick of spam. This could help us eliminate some of those off-shore servers that spammers love to hide behind.

Give everyone in the world email for a week and then see all the government action we desperately crave ;)

Sounds like bullshit (1)

jerryodom (904532) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322624)

Description of Blue Frog Initiative [technewsworld.com]

But I guess it may work in some cases. I bet these guys making headlines for getting retaliated against sometime soon.

Anti-Blue Frog (4, Informative)

JonN (895435) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322625)

An interesting article over at TechNewsWorld [technewsworld.com] about how Blue Frog is not what we need in the battle against spam. "It's the worst kind of vigilante approach," said John Levine, a board member with the Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail. "Deliberate attacks against people's Web sites are illegal."

Re:Anti-Blue Frog (4, Insightful)

darkmayo (251580) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322678)

Personally I think the "worst kind" of vigilante approach would be getting the spammers home addresses and savagely beating them... or killing them. I dont think DDOSing some spammer pricks domain is that bad if you compare what could happen to these people.

Re:Anti-Blue Frog (5, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322747)

Personally I think the "WORST kind" of vigilante approach would be getting the spammers home addresses and savagely beating them... or killing them.

You misspelled "best".

Re:Anti-Blue Frog (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13322789)

Well, that would be effective.

Re:Anti-Blue Frog (1)

lantenon (867508) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322834)

You mean like this guy? [slashdot.org]

Re:Anti-Blue Frog (5, Insightful)

RealAlaskan (576404) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322843)

Personally I think the "worst kind" of vigilante approach would be getting the spammers home addresses and savagely beating them... or killing them.

Isn't that spelled ``best''?

Seriously, the grandparent post refered to this as a DDOS. If the spammer sends me an email, he's certainly got no right to complain if he gets one back. If he gets enough back to shut down his website, well, he shouldn't have sent so much spam, should he? My understanding is that Blue Frog tries to send an unsubscribe message for every spammed address (their website is slashdotted)? If so, the spammers have already announced their willingness to get that message, and it is obviously legal.

Re:Anti-Blue Frog (1, Troll)

garcia (6573) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322955)

Personally I think the "worst kind" of vigilante approach would be getting the spammers home addresses and savagely beating them... or killing them. I dont think DDOSing some spammer pricks domain is that bad if you compare what could happen to these people.

Aren't you overreacting just a little? Have you seriously considered finding a bulk mailer and "savagely beating them or killing them"? If so, I really suggest you seek professional help. Prozac might reverse that so that you could quite possibly end up killing yourself.

Comments like yours means that you are as much a drain on society as the spammers.

Spend all that mouthy energy you have to create worthwhile legislation, write code, or find alternate methods to dealing with the problem.

DDOSing, physical harm, and strange thoughts are pointless. Really, they are.

Re:Anti-Blue Frog (1)

mr. methane (593577) | more than 9 years ago | (#13323035)

Problem is, the one who likely gets stuck with the bill is some poor ISP who finds out a month later that the customer cancelled his credit card five minutes after opening the account. The spammer still gets his $50 for the three or four idiots who ordered some quack remedy.

The good news is that the big guys - yahoo, aol, etc., won't really feel the pinch - just the small shops that provide individual service.

Re:Anti-Blue Frog (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13322737)

I'd like to tell these "knee-jerk" holier than thou commentators to piss off. This might not be the ideal solution, but then we're not in an ideal situation. Vigilantism is a natural response in areas where lawlessness exists, and where law enforcement authorities are either unable or unwilling to enforce the law.

The internet, unfortunately, is pretty lawless right now. Until that's fixed, this is the best we got. Three cheers for them and where can I sign up?

Vigilanties made the net. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13322879)

The net always claimed to be self regulating.
A large organised effort to police things is surely self-regulation and not vigilantism.

What are the other options, let Governments pass laws against stuff ?
Well they just include all sorts of super shutdown and wiretap powers.

So c'mon buy those Vigilaties a beer.

P.S. I am posting Anon to avoid antivigilanty vigilany actions, er or something...

Vigilante is preferrable to Ostrich (1)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322979)

"It's the worst kind of vigilante approach," said John Levine, a board member with the Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail. "Deliberate attacks against people's Web sites are illegal."

How's the quote go? "Capitalism is terrible, but beats the alternatives"?

So we should ignore the fact that all previous solutions have failed, and users have become completely complacent with the advent of spam filtering software? (currently, antispam software is a spammer's best dream; he/she doesn't irritate the users who care enough about spam to do something about it; either install software, or switch to a different ISP, etc.) Should we ignore that ISPs/MHP's don't care? That backbone companies gleefully watch the bucks roll in from traffic from spam?(would YOU say goodbye to 1/3rd of your revenue stream?).

The internet is very much like the Wild West. It's a brave new frontier, the government doesn't have the ability to maintain order, and so on. In a vacuum, someone's going to step up to the plate to maintain order. Thusfar it's been spammers.

I've heard claims that vigilantes will endanger legitimate businesses. That's just too bad. If you can't play baseball because Mommy took away your baseball bat- well, maybe you shouldn't have gone around smacking people on the head with it. At every oppertunity the commercial world has failed to regulate itself (example- HP could chase after the spammers offering HP toner cartridges. Drug companies could chase after spammers offering viagra. Do they? Only with a token effort.)

I think commercial interests have had plenty of free run with "the whole internet thing"; we've seen a huge boom and collapse because they made false promises and lied through their teeth, and now they're running what is left into the ground via spam. People are finally realizing "fight back" is the best way.

If a few eggs get broken to make the omlette, so fuckin' be it. It's time to remind businesses that the internet is for everyone, and not in the "rape, pillage, and burn" sense.

The missing link (2, Informative)

erykjj (213892) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322639)

Blue Security [bluesecurity.com]

domain names (2, Funny)

dotpavan (829804) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322641)

look at the domain names, makes a good read..

asdlkjfea.com, alsfajega.com, aksdfaewl.com, hkassautdn.com, egmymaridjk.com, lhperdixnd.com, clthriftbf.com, bibiae.com, romisingfeasibility.com, betheuplift.com, fundamentalstojoy.com, dealandvaluematch.com, valueandassets.com, oursuperbiz.com, and best of them: truthfoundhere.com

maybe spamfoundhere.com?

Nibbling (2, Insightful)

dal20402 (895630) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322647)

This is nibbling around the edges, but nothing else is possible, so we should keep doing it.

Sue/fine/arrest/jail spammers? They'll move abroad where we can't find them.

Get a legal framework that will be enforced in all the countries connected to the Internet? Good fscking luck.

System Requirements? (3, Insightful)

Grimster (127581) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322648)

I just hit the "join beta" link and didn't fill out the form, on the page you signup I see:

System Requirement

Windows 2000/2003/XP

Ok so I'm out, last windows I read email on was Win95 or maybe Win98, some bullshit virus or another screwed me over, I ain't "done email" on Windows of any type since. Oddly enough, I haven't had any viruses, spyware, adware, or malware since then either.

So while I applaud efforts to reduce spam, efforts that requre Windows seems silly at best and are efforts I can't join in on. Even my wife no longer reads email on Windows, the last time her Windows PC slowed to a crawl due to spyware instead of spending 3 or 4 hours googling for the latest cleaners and finding out what new and not at all entertaining spyware she had, I said "fuck this' gave her my new and as yet unpacked Mac Mini and she hasn't had any spyware problems since. Ripped her PC apart and installed Linux on it to replace my laptop as my main "work" pc.

Re:System Requirements? (1)

deft (253558) | more than 9 years ago | (#13323029)

You should maybe install an anti virus and spyware program. They work great... I've never had a virus or spyware on this win2000 box.

Sounds like you had bad habits to get all that stuff... and when the virus writers get interested in LINUX if it ever gets popular, you'll be back in the same boat.

Russian spammers fate (1)

mclennanb (907758) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322659)

Whot about the bloke in Russia who got 'blown away' with a gun for excess spamming?

Re:Russian spammers fate (1)

TheOtherAgentM (700696) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322707)

I believe he was beaten to death, not shot.

Re:Russian spammers fate (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322731)

Only in Russia do they beat you to death with a gun...

Re:Russian spammers fate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13322822)

I'm sure that made him feel much better...

Re:Russian spammers fate (1)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322901)

He wasn't killed because he was a spammer. He was killed because he was doing business with sociopaths. The spamming thing was just a side note.

Foot, meet bullet (4, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322673)

> An interesting update from Blue Security, the group that introduces the Blue Frog initiative to fight spam, claims that during the past few days at least one spammer had frequently deleted domains he owned as a result of their system. In another update in their blog they report they have already recruited over 21,000 users. It's about time spammers start feeling the heat! I'm just surprised they show results so soon."

An interesting update from Spammers-R-Us, Inc [...] In another update in their blog, they report they have already gotten over 21,000 Slashdotters to hit the Blue Frog site. It's about time spamfighters started feeling the heat! I'm just surprised they show the results within 20 posts on the thread!

- with apologies to the original article poster :)

Let's not forget... (1)

burtdub (903121) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322676)

<sarcasm> Let's be sure to give proper credit to Congress and their ultra-effective CANSPAM act. </sarcasm>

A better idea (4, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322720)

I propose the Blue Steel program where spammers are hunted down like animals. Sponsored by Colt. Successful hunters will be allowed to mount the heads on their walls.

Re:A better idea (1)

The-Bus (138060) | more than 9 years ago | (#13323012)

Blue Steel? That will probably be just like Le Tigre, Ferrari, and Magnum. It's all one program! Doesn't anyone else see this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

Litigate against all the spammers. (1)

www.sorehands.com (142825) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322761)

Microsoft received $7M from Richter, but what about all the other spam victims of Richter. There still is over $45M in proofs of claims against Snotty.

If even .1% of spam spam victims sued Snotty for the spam that he sent, he would be out of money.

One large spam suit usually does not take out a spammer, but 1000 or 10,000 smaller suits will.

Re:Litigate against all the spammers. (1)

Zarquil (187770) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322909)

If only .1% of people respond to spam, they can make millions.

If only .1% of spam vicims sue a spammer, they can make millions.

Sounds to me like there's a lot of money to be made on the margins. There's a whole bunch of collateral damage going on that's costing us a lot more than the millions on the margins, though..

You Only Think You're Winning (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13322788)

As a spammer, I can honestly say that this is just a small victory. For every attempt you make to squelch us, we will always find another way to reach our audience. If the truth be told, there are far more people who are responsive to spam than there are people who dislike it. The sales figures for the businesses we serve prove this. But no matter, you can be happy in your small victory for today. The truth of the matter is that what these supposed security experts are doing is disrupting important commerce. This is a crime in any civilized nation and it will not go unpunished. Additionally, we have operatives around the world who will go to any length to preserve their employer. It is only a matter of time before the criminals behind these disruptions in our services are brought to justice. Always remember this. We live in a god eat dog world. We will always be the bigger dog. Never forget that you puny little fuckers.

Re:You Only Think You're Winning (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322872)

If the truth be told, there are far more people who are responsive to spam than there are people who dislike it.

      Say what? Which planet is this information from?

The sales figures for the businesses we serve prove this.

      How do you get this information, exactly? By comparing the number of sales to the number of times people click on the useless, "sign me up for more spam" unsubscribe link?

important commerce

      Yes I understand that "h3R|34L v1aGr4", having my penis enlarged, and a fake degree are important commerce. Yup. Real important. So important that I delete it on sight. Along with 99.9999% of other users. You guys make a living on the 0.0001% of people who do not act rationally, but to do so, you bother everyone else.

      Nice troll, AC. You've been fed. Now die. The sun's coming up.

Re:You Only Think You're Winning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13322937)

Nice troll, AC. You've been fed. Now die. The sun's coming up.
I believe trolls just dislike the sun, whereas vampires are the creatures which die when the sun comes up.

/not the same A.C. as the one you are refering to

God Complex Carbohydrate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13322906)

> We live in a god eat dog world. We will always be the bigger dog.

So... if I understand your spammer religion correctly, you will spend your afterlife as a particularly large and tasty snack for God?

Man, you guys are crazier than I thought.

Re:You Only Think You're Winning (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322918)

From: Pamela Manning [kgbjenx@fsf.com.au]
Sent: Tue 2/8/2005 3:49 PM
To: T4$
Cc:
Subject: Does your son suffer from your chronic Impotence
Attachments:

Your heartbeat are like mine

V.I'o'X.X 25 m,g 3o PILlS 72.50

V.1,A.G.R'A 1oo m'g 32 PiL|S 149.o0

C.1.A'L*1.S 2O m*g 10 P1lLS 79.00

0.r.d.e.r quickly :
http://pont.newyorkmedz.com/?wid=209015 [newyorkmedz.com] ! Same Day Sh1pp1ng !

We Also have in St0ck:

X*A'N.A,X 1 m*g 3O P!|LS 79.Oo

P.R*0.Z.A.C 2O m,g 3O PiL|S 11o.0O

P,A.X*1,L 2o m,g 2O P!llS 155.0O

M,E*R,I'D*I.A 10 m.g 3O PiL|S 147.OO

,p> see you soon

Jasper Trujillo
President
CarboMer, Inc., San Diego, United States of America
Phone: 474-941-7114
Mobile: 198-316-6411
Email: kgbjenx@fsf.com.au

This is a confirmation message

This package is a 3[2

You will go to jail and .. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13322923)

You will eventually go to jail. Then we will send your cellmate, Bubba, penis enlargment pills, cialis softabs, penis enlargment patches, and SPUR-M, just for his enjoyment.

Bon Appetit to [insert deity] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13323037)

We live in a god eat dog world. We will always be the bigger dog.

If you'll always be the "bigger dog" does that mean that the god who eats you will be better fed by doing so? What exactly is your point?

On the use of this to decrease your competition (2, Interesting)

Haiku 4 U (580059) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322792)

If I was the King
of Spam, I would send email
for competitors.

More people will hire
me - my competition is
DOSed to death!

In Other news Spammers use /. to destroy antispam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13322808)

Slashdot, the greatest server destoryer known to man

Poor solution (1, Interesting)

gr8_phk (621180) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322815)

This solution to spam is one that could at best reach an equilibrium with less spam but still plenty around. If people have to DDOS the spammers to make the problem go away, then it will never go away. If it did, people would stop being prepared to DDOS them and the problem will come back. This is not likely to be cyclical, but rather reach an equilibrium. It also doesn't account for zombies sending spam - unless you DDOS the sites that are advertised, and that's got another whole set of legal issues.

IMHO, sender pays (ala hash-cash or something like it) is the only way to make a meaningful dent in the spam problem. I know this fails one or two of the "reasons" on that list as to why it won't work, but doing nothing also doesn't work. Why don't Free programs implement this so people at least have the option of using it? I'd actually prefer a problem that can scale much larger - like taking a minute or even an hour on todays computers - so it will still be viable in the future. Yes, there are issues (like mailing lists) with this approach, but there are ways around those too. People have to be willing to do SOMETHING. If someone doesn't do something, someone else (think MS) will. Then we'll have a proprietary "standard" for dealing with it. You folks maintaining the software just have to get some nads and take a little initiative on this. If you wait for some company to devise a solution, they aren't going to just give it to you.

Summertime and the spamming is easy (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322838)

We have a blog post to PR a "spam-catcher" - how is this different from spam, which is an unpaid commercial advertisement?

I'm just saying it's not news per se, nor is it really tech per se.

sigh.

Make them run using Postfix? (5, Informative)

xiando (770382) | more than 9 years ago | (#13322874)

smtpd_sender_restrictions = reject_unknown_address
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
permit_sasl_authenticated,
reject_non_fqdn_sender,
reject_non_fqdn_recipient,
reject_unknown_sender_domain,
reject_unknown_recipient_domain,
reject_unauth_pipelining,
permit_mynetworks,
reject_unauth_destination,
reject_rbl_client ombie.dnsbl.sorbs.net,
reject_rbl_client relays.ordb.org,
reject_rbl_client opm.blitzed.org,
reject_rbl_client list.dsbl.org,
reject_rbl_client sbl.spamhaus.org,
permit

We are also using SpamAssassinn / razor / clamav using amavisd-new. The main mail account used for everything from clients webmaster@ mail to contact@ are getting numerous spam daily, yet only three or perhaps four a month get delivered... and those are added to our body_checks.txt which is publicly available for download [linuxreviews.org] by anyone, including spammers who I have a feeling makes spammers think twice and clean us off their list when they find themselves listed there using search engines etc.

This gives me an idea... (3, Funny)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 9 years ago | (#13323010)

Just as a proof of concept, would somebody please start sending out millions of "fake" spam messages, all with links to every one of SCO's web pages? Thanks!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?