×

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!

Who Benefits from Spam, Anyway?

Cliff posted more than 7 years ago | from the large-scale-shotgun-approach dept.

109

Elbowgeek asks: "I've noticed that the vast majority of spam emails I receive are barely literate, to the point that in some cases one can hardly discern the product or service being advertised. Since most people are savvy/jaded enough to detect these entities that are not filtered automatically, just where does the profit motive from these messages come from? Is it simply the theory that if you send enough spam messages you're very likely to hit enough gullible recipients to make an acceptable amount of money? Does anyone have any insight on this dark underbelly of Internet advertising?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

109 comments

To many stupid greedy people. (4, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 7 years ago | (#15892566)

Well you can assume that some of the Spam is static used to detrain spam filters. But for most cases Spammers make money in sending the Spam, Not selling the services that goes with it. So say they charge $10,000 for a Million emails. So unexpecting company or some poor smuck think he is going to get rich quick with this stuff will pay the spamming companies so much to give the link to their website and sell a product. But there is no promise that they will sell the product they only promise to deliver a million emails. So what normally happens the Smuck goes bankrupt and the Spammer gets the money. If the Spammer can get past the Spam filters then they can promise better visibility.
There is basically an endless pot of Smuck who think they can get rich quick by selling sex toys, Investing in stock tips...

Re:To many stupid greedy people. (3, Informative)

oyenstikker (536040) | more than 7 years ago | (#15892650)

Bingo. Nobody actually needs to ever buy the product for spam to be profitable. Thats why it won't go away.

Re:To many stupid greedy people. (2, Interesting)

fossa (212602) | more than 7 years ago | (#15893977)

If spammers are just scamming their customers with full knowledge that the spam will not increase product sales, then what is the incentive to actually send out the spam messages rather than simply lie to the customer? Can one take a spammer to court and claim "this man promised to send 2 million unsolicited emails on my behalf but failed to do so; I demand a refund!" Seems difficult to proved one way or the other if the spam services are even legal.

Not just greedy people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15892688)

There is basically an endless pot of Smuck who think they can get rich quick by selling sex toys, Investing in stock tips...

That is one way of making money off spamming but there are others. I know of three examples of people who fell for 419 scams of some sort. The last incident was about a year ago. I always thought these 419 scams were such a public joke nobody fell for them any more but apparently people still do, which is due to greed. But there is spam, or perhaps more like targeted e-mail fraud, that doesn't rely on stupid people or greed. These scams are getting quite sophisticated. People receive e-mails that look legit and even contain personal information about them in the subject line. Once you open them your PC gets spiked with spyware either directly via an attachment or by luring you to a website offering disguised malicious software for download that contains a key-logger or some other sort of spyware. In some cases it's even shareware or demoware that does something useful which makes people less suspicious. Not all that long ago an attack like this resulted in several people in the city where I live getting their online bank accounts cleaned out. Both the 419 scams and various types of online robbery and identity theft are increasingly controlled by organized crime.

Re:To many stupid greedy people. (4, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 7 years ago | (#15892844)

> Investing in stock tips...

Many of the stock tip spams are attempts to pump a stock. I suspect that they often work.

Re:To many stupid greedy people. (3, Insightful)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 7 years ago | (#15893875)

Many of the stock tip spams are attempts to pump a stock.

Although not my experiences are more anecdotal than imperical, I HAVE taken the time over the last year to track at least a couple dozen stocks that I have received spam for, up to a week after I received the spam. (finance.yahoo.com) About half the time, I have seen quick pops followed by quicker declines, indicating enough people purchased to drive the stock up 5%-10% (or a little more), followed by a decline within 24 hours pushing the same stock to the original price or a little lower.

Maybe 30-40% of the time, the price didn't seem to change much (maybe not enough emails were sent) or the fluxuation was inline with the stock's trends, so it couldn't be determined if the spam did anything. The remaining 10%-20 it seems the stock simply slid in price (say, 3-10%) with no rise at all.

So I can see how someone could pump up stocks and on average make money from spamming but it isn't always a sure thing. I have NOT heard of the SEC or any other agency arresting anyone for this, which seems to be clearly illegal, spam or not.

Re:To many stupid greedy people. (3, Interesting)

bluu (732810) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895695)

I did the same thing. I took a spam with a very clear disclaimer (although they used a tiny font):

[...] We have received 250.000 free trading shares from a third party, not an officer, director or affiliate shareholder. We intend to sell all 250.000 shares now, which could cause the stock to go down. This company has : negative cash flow from operations, no revenues in its most recent quarter, an accumulated defecit, a negative net worth, nominal cash, a going concern opinion from its auditor and related party transaction. [...] This is a penny stock and is a high risk security. URGENT: Please, Please Read the Company's SEC filings before you invest.

The stock was ASIQ.OB, before this spam, it was around $0.25
So the 'third party' gave around $62.500 to the spammer in free shares. Few days after, the stock was priced around $0.75
If the spammer sold everything at this price, he actually gain $187.500.

The 'third party' bought probably a million or more of trading shares. Imagine how profitable this operation was for both of them.

Re:To many stupid greedy people. (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895734)

Wow, I certainly hope that is illegal, for many different reasons. Actually, I know it is since the entire purpose was to manipulate the stock price. That the spammer was paid in stock only makes it worse, as he as committed two crimes instead of one.

Of course, the real problem is the idiots who actually read the "stock tips" and buy stock based on this "information". Just like all spam, the problem is equally the people who spend the money. If no one bought from spammers (or their clients), spammers wouldn't exist for very long.

Greedy, but not necessarily stupid (1)

nickovs (115935) | more than 7 years ago | (#15894236)

There was an excellent paper [ssrn.com] at the Workshop on Economics and Information Security [econinfosec.org] a few weeks ago which showed that stock pump-and-dump spam works. It was also shown that as more people are discovering this fact they are riding the band-waggon, thereby making it work even better. If you can spot the scam, perpetrated by others, early in the cycle then you can trade the stock yourself and make a profit and not actually be breaking any securities laws, since you're not the one promoting the stock.

Re:Greedy, but not necessarily stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15895410)

If you can spot the scam, perpetrated by others, early in the cycle then you can trade the stock yourself and make a profit and not actually be breaking any securities laws, since you're not the one promoting the stock.

I imagine it would also be possible to make money off these scams by shorting the stock. You'd have to time if fairly well, though.

Re:To many stupid greedy people. (1)

Elbowgeek (633324) | more than 7 years ago | (#15893476)

Thanks for replying to my question. I had actually considered this may be the case, but one would figure that after a while that the futility and lack of profit produced by paying the spammers to send out one's message would become common knowledge.

Still, there are people who still try heroin thinking it can't possibly get them addicted despite the millions affected by the drug. Money is probably the most potent drug of all...

Re:To many stupid greedy people. (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 7 years ago | (#15893483)

You mean *attempt* to detrain spam filters. I've been watching my filter, and there is absolutely no difference in effectiveness. My filter has a 0.1% false negative rate, and a 0% false positive rate. It's been that way for about three years now, rock steady.

I get 100,000 spams a month.

Re:To many stupid greedy people. (1)

Vlad_the_Inhaler (32958) | more than 7 years ago | (#15893657)

I get 100,000 spams a month
Sheesh. That is 3000 a day.

I get something in the region of 1500 a month, very few false positives but 10% (easily identifiable) false negatives which immediately get the click of death.

If I have been away for a few days, there is no such thing as a false positive. If it has been sorted out by the filter then it gets junked, sight unseen. With 3000 a day then it would be like that every day.

Re:To many stupid greedy people. (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895002)

It's doubling every month too. I already hit 100,000 this month and it's not even halfway through. It's just me that uses this domain too.

Re:To many stupid greedy people. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15894137)

The word is "schmuck" [wikipedia.org] , and originally meant "foreskin".

Re:To many stupid greedy people. (1)

mabu (178417) | more than 7 years ago | (#15894588)

What's interesting now is that we're seeing more spam which seems to imply their market is shrinking. The barrage of penny stock scams only need a handful of morons to participate to drive up the price to a point where they can dump the stock and make money. So when you spam to 100 million e-mail boxes, the law of averages says at least a few dozen idiots might bite and you can take their money via their portfolio.

The short answer (5, Insightful)

jone_stone (124040) | more than 7 years ago | (#15892567)

The short answer: yes. Send out a million emails and get a .1% response and it's more than worth it.

A few observations (1)

burndive (855848) | more than 7 years ago | (#15893658)

Taking a quick glance at my spam folder, it seems to me that there are a few very logical reasons why people would end up buying from a spammer:

(1) Unavailability (illegal or taboo)
They don't know of any other place to buy the product being advertised (perhaps because it is not advertised elsewhere, or it's illegal to advertise or sell), or they would be too embarassed to research it further or walk into a store that sells the item or request it from a person in "real life."

Examples: penis enlargements, viagra knockoffs (and other shady pharmaceuticals), fake rolexes, porn can also fall into this category.

Often the strategy of spammers could be to just always be "there" so that when someone first decides to enter the market for a product, the easiest source that immediately pops into their minds is spam.

(2) Stock tips: all the spammer has to do is plant the ticker symbol and curiosity takes over. If enough people look at a stock, odds are some of them will take a chance on it and buy, even without research (perhaps they feel lucky). There really is no such thing as bad publicity for an obscure company.

Re:The short answer (1)

sexyrexy (793497) | more than 7 years ago | (#15894464)

No one gets a .1% response with spam. I write web reporting software to track the success of direct mail marketing (aka real junk mail, from the postman) and a .1% response rate is considered good. And that's figuring each mail piece cost about 25 cents... with e-mail, it could be a .001% response rate and still make a profit.

So the question really is... (3, Funny)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 7 years ago | (#15892568)

who benefits from all the badly formatted spam? Wasn't there a story about this a day or 2 ago: someone suggested that it wa an attempt to train baysean filters to accept spam?

Re:So the question really is... (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#15892628)

Probably. I've seen more spam in my inbox [gmail] lately. All of it nonsense or foreign language junk.

It was bad enough when we were getting spammed in English for things we could spend money on. Now we're getting nonsense spam and they provide no way to exchange funds [which bursts the 0.1% theorem]

Tom

Re:So the question really is... (1)

Mistshadow2k4 (748958) | more than 7 years ago | (#15892863)

Wish I could say the same. Google's junk mail filter used to be spectacular, but not anymore. I'm getting around 5-10 spam emails a day from the domain name "mailnvd01.net", all in English. I've reported each and every one as spam but every day there is more of them in my inbox; Gmail's spam filters have failed to catch them every time. That adds up to about 60 emails from this one spammer this week alone. With me reporting each of them you'd think the spam filter would get a clue. I'm beginning to think they must be paying Google to never tag their crap as spam. Makes sense, doesn't it? If you can't get rid of spam clogging up your servers, charge 'em for it.

Re:So the question really is... (2, Interesting)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#15892869)

It's entirely possible there are people with fake google accounts marking that as "non-spam" to counter the operation.

It isn't like you need a captcha to report spam.

Tom

Re:So the question really is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15892961)

and there may be a few people who use a smart spam management system, like Okopipi, and are FUCKING ANNOYHED THAT THE SPAM *CAN'T* GET TO THEIR FUCKING INBOXES, to be reported to someone who actually will do something...

Re:So the question really is... (1)

chimpo13 (471212) | more than 7 years ago | (#15894378)

There's the badly coded spam that shows up addressed to "$FIRSTNAME,$LASTNAME". I wonder how much of the straight up nonsense spam is a by-product of sloppy code.

Google business plan? (3, Interesting)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 7 years ago | (#15893496)

I'm beginning to think they must be paying Google to never tag their crap as spam.

1) Offer free email with gobs of space to instantly become a major player in that area.
2) Punch blatantly obvious holes in the spam filters for your biggest-budget customers.
3) When people complain, simply remind them that it's still in beta.
4) Profit!

Re:So the question really is... (1)

commanderfoxtrot (115784) | more than 7 years ago | (#15894123)

I'm experiencing the same- much more spam in the last few weeks in my gmail account.

Then again, it's been a lot less over the last 2 days...

Re:So the question really is... (1)

dhasenan (758719) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895332)

Remember the stories over the past few days about that patch for a vulnerability that could cause another Blaster-scale virus? About how a lot more zombies would be added to botnets?

Maybe the reason you've seen more spam is because there are more senders, and it's taking time to catch up with the load. More senders means more possible diversity, after all.

Re:So the question really is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15892729)

I meant to ask this the other day with the original article; does this make bayesian filter accept spam? I would think that rather it would make those filters start capturing legitimate email as well as spam. Either way works for the spammers, because it renders the spam filter useless, but I wasn't clear on how it really works.

My theory (1)

frosty_tsm (933163) | more than 7 years ago | (#15892575)

While early spam might have been more legit (in that it was actually advertising a respectable product), my theory is that most spam now-a-days is prompted by the same motives that virus writing is (that is, something like satisfaction in hurting / discomforting others). Considering that a lot of the spam is coming from zombie computers (infected by a virus), I don't think my theory may be partially correct.

Which of course brings up the question . . . (4, Interesting)

Rachel Lucid (964267) | more than 7 years ago | (#15892598)

Is there any point left in spam but to keep spam-blocking companies in business? After all, Internet Security is quite the nice racket...

Re:Which of course brings up the question . . . (1)

Sage Gaspar (688563) | more than 7 years ago | (#15892602)

My thought exactly :D

Doesn't even need to be a big conspiracy, a small group of people can send out a huge amount of spam. I remember my grandpa once got adware that was an advertisement for adware removal.

Re:Which of course brings up the question . . . (2, Insightful)

xxtensen (991891) | more than 7 years ago | (#15893263)

No spam: no spam blockers. No drugs: no war on drugs. No terrorism: no war on terrorism...

Re:My theory (1)

tommertron (640180) | more than 7 years ago | (#15892600)

Good theory. My reply theorized kind of the same thing. If I could use my mod points now, I'd mod you up!

Re:My theory (4, Insightful)

pilkul (667659) | more than 7 years ago | (#15892624)

Um.

1. Spam has never been used to advertise respectable products.
2. The motive for virus writing nowadays is profit, same as spam. Viruses let you put up adware and create zombie hordes for spam forwarding or DDoS blackmailing.
3. In the past, the motive for virus writing was not to hurt other people, but simply a kind of power trip or experiment. For proof, look at how very small the proportion of viruses that intentionally delete data is. The psychopathic "hurt as many people as possible" mindset is extremely rare.

Re:My theory (1)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 7 years ago | (#15894926)

Yes, it has. Spam was originally used to sell pretty ordinary products and services: the same type of things you'd find in the Yellow Pages. The first spam was actually an advertisement for a law firm, IIRC. The businesses were contactable, had real phone numbers and street addresses, and so on; people thought of spam as just being a new advertising venue not unlike TV, newspapers, the Yellow Pages, &c.

After people started getting more and more upset about spam, legitimate businesses naturally moved away from it, leaving behind only the shadier businesses or outright scams like penis pills, diet drugs, debt-wiping services, and penny-stock investment advice. With spam being outlawed nowadays, the only people left spamming are going to be illegal or quasi-legal businesses, naturally.

Re:My theory (1)

pilkul (667659) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895013)

The first spam was actually an advertisement for a law firm, IIRC.
Indeed, this sleazy law firm [wikipedia.org] one of whose partners has since been disbarred. Yes, it's marginally more reputable than today's spams but not by much. Nor was it viewed as an ordinary advertising venue: it resulted in an immediate outcry and a wave of spam blocking measures were taken.

Re:My theory (2, Informative)

slackmaster2000 (820067) | more than 7 years ago | (#15892801)

Does a lot of spam come from zombie machines though? Certainly a lot of spam comes from open relays, and a certain amount comes from inept web hosts (although I've leased servers, and most datacenters get very suspicious when your email traffic picks up). But how much spam comes from infected PCs with so many ISPs now blocking outgoing requests to port 25?

I run a small project web hosting company with about 30 customers. We used to offer outgoing SMTP services, and still do (password required), but the majority of our customers are now unable to use it. We now recommend that everyone use their ISP's outgoing mail server. Another issue we ran into was a whole lot of mail gets rejected if reverse DNS entries aren't configured properly, and this would also be a problem for zombie machines. Perhaps I'm thinking of zombie machines as hijacked PCs and the real problem is hijacked servers.

I would assume, and I recognize that I could be completely incorrect, that most spam today comes from mass mailing companies. These companies of course use devious methods to deliver messages, from targeting open relays to abusing web hosts to running servers in "anything goes" data centers.

The reason I don't think that the motivation is the same as virus writers is that almost all spam, aside from phishing attempts and obvious goofs, has a link to an actual website selling something. If I were a virus writing kind of guy and wanted to send out a zillion junk messages, they wouldn't be advertisements for viagra because I'd want some kind of recognition.

If I had to bet, my money would be on the low percentage success rate. That is, it's cheap to send a million emails, and if only a tiny percent of those messages result in a sale, it's probably worthwhile financially. Spam *must* be a money game. It just doesn't make sense to me otherwise. Consider how the web is also being overrun by "spammers": bogus block sites, bogus search sites, bogus link sites, all designed to make money off a tiny little click through rate.

Wouldn't it be nice if some elite group of movie-style good guy hackers got together to knock the shit out of spammers? I'm not sure if there's any other solution but to knock them out. Legislation is minimal help, but only in certain countries. Anti-spam software is a band-aid and doesn't lessen much the financial burden of spam. Unless everybody in the world all at once decides to switch email protocols, I don't know if this will ever stop. It's obscene.

I don't really even use personal email anymore. I don't care to keep on top of my filters so I just don't bother. I remember a time when I checked my email multiple times every hour. Now I check it once a week to see if something came in from an address that I've got a routing rule for. "Downloading 393 messages....one of which is legit." Fun.

Re:My theory (2, Informative)

TFGeditor (737839) | more than 7 years ago | (#15893910)

"would assume, and I recognize that I could be completely incorrect, that most spam today comes from mass mailing companies. These companies of course use devious methods to deliver messages, from targeting open relays to abusing web hosts to running servers in "anything goes" data centers."

Your are correct that you are incorrect. Simply examine the IP addresses that spam comes from: Comcast, RoadRunner, SBCglobal, Adelphia, ATT, kingwoodcable.com, cebridge.net, Verizon, calpop.com, atmlinkinc.com, Charter, uci.net, ctccom.net, Earthlink, Qwest, suddenlink.net, Sprint, knology.net, insightcom.com, mdm.net, zoominternet.net, mnsi.net, Netzero.

Those are just a few of the sources of spam that was in my spam folder this morning. It does not include andy of the 300 or so that were trapped at the server by an IP filter that blackholes anything sent from a foreign (non-U.S.) IP address.

Why so many different sources and why from consumer IP addresses if these are not zombied machines?

Re:My theory (1)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 7 years ago | (#15893253)

The virus theory I think is a good theory for some of the spam. Whether creating a bunch of zombies to do one's bidding, or simply putting keyloggers onto their computer to find out their credit card information, it's a win-win (for them) situation if they infect someone.

Spammers benefit (2, Interesting)

nascarguy27 (984493) | more than 7 years ago | (#15892577)

By doing this
1. Send mass, annoyingly misspelled emails
2. Wait as stupid people wanting (insert lame thing here) open and click on them
3. ??????
4. Profit

OT: your sig (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 7 years ago | (#15892875)

About your sig, you could close the bracket, and then, I think (iirc) that you can do directly return, might take a cast but i don't think it's even needed ;-)

funny createSig(witty remark, odd reference)
{
return sigOut = remark + reference;
} //that's how i'd do it ;-)

Re:OT: your sig (1)

_Splat (22170) | more than 7 years ago | (#15893091)

You could just do return remark + reference; No need to waste stack space with an extra Funny. Wittys need to support Odds being added to them, and also be convertible to Funnys.

Of course, it's a sig, not a function... so we really shouldn't be analyzing it this carefully.

OT:My sig (1)

nascarguy27 (984493) | more than 7 years ago | (#15893156)

Yea, no need to analyze too much. The casts are there because witty and odd doesn't implicitly make a funny. Of course the casts need to be defined...

Re:Spammers benefit (2, Insightful)

generic-man (33649) | more than 7 years ago | (#15893309)

3. Collect list of stupid people's e-mail addresses, which you now know are good
3 1/2. Sell list of e-mail addresses to other spammers
4. Profit!

Just a theory.

Not everyone makes a profit... (4, Insightful)

Total_Wimp (564548) | more than 7 years ago | (#15892578)

It's just like every other business out there. Some people don't know how to run them. Unfortunately, with spam, these idiots are able to make a major anoyance of themselves with their ill-concieved, badly run catastrophies.

Trust me, the illiterate folks really don't make any money. But they're only part of your spam. The one where, you know, you can actually find some information on how to buy a product? They're doing ok.

TW

Don't you read Slashdot? (3, Insightful)

tommertron (640180) | more than 7 years ago | (#15892584)

http://it.slashdot.org/it/06/08/09/1523207.shtml [slashdot.org]

Apparently a lot of the 'gibberish' spam not trying to sell you anything is just there to try to untrain the spam filters so the next one that does try to sell you something might slip through. Or it negates the spam filters' effectiveness so much that people have to start looking in their spam filters for actual messages.

Personally, I think there's a lot less of a greed factor right now than there is an 'us vs' them' factor. I really think it's just getting to be an elaborate game for these spammers now - all they're trying to do is thwart the filters, and they've forgotten all about trying to dupe people out their money.

It wasn't the obvious gibberish spam... (1)

Elbowgeek (633324) | more than 7 years ago | (#15893491)

Indeed it was the filter training post which inspired this one. I realise a lot of it is probably to retrain the filters, but I don't see the spam filters in Yahoo mail being any less effective.

I'm talking about the spam which combines ever more elaborate ways to spell out \/|/\gr/\ (or teen virgin, or hot MILF) with an obvious complete lack of command of the English language, which is an obvious attempt to get around the filters as opposed to training them. This produces a subject header which is completely unintelligible.

It seems that those who contract the spammers to advertise their product are getting scammed more than the public (see my reply to the first answer above).

Cheers

There are two layers at work (3, Insightful)

MarkusQ (450076) | more than 7 years ago | (#15892587)

There are two layers at work; the spammers and the "vendors" they spam for. The spammers are paid to spam, but they don't really care if the product sells or not. It's just like any advertising--magazines are paid to print your ads, but if they ads don't work, it's not their problem.

If you extrapolate normal advertising out by a few orders of magnitude (dumber, cheaper, wider distribution, etc.) you get spam. If you don't extrapolate out far enough (and find yourself in direct mail or telemarketing), no worries. Just keep going in that general direction a while longer, and eventually you'll come to spam.

--MarkusQ

Re:There are two layers at work (2, Insightful)

WedgeTalon (823522) | more than 7 years ago | (#15892633)

That's right, to a point. If, however, in your example, none of a product's ads produce sales, they likely won't be advertising in that magazine again. So it is somewhat of a concern to spammers that their clients actually end up getting some sales. Thus why we get the constant war of spammers trying to get past our protection schemes.

Re:There are two layers at work (3, Insightful)

MstrFool (127346) | more than 7 years ago | (#15892812)

Not so, and he didn't say that none of the adds sold anything, he somply said that the spammer doesn't care if they do or not. Just as there are large numbers of people that do reply to spam, there is also a large enough group of people willing to pay spammers to spam for them. You get $10,000 from one guy and it cost you next to nothing. How long would you be willing to wait for the next sucker to ask you to spam for them? So the first guy got nothing and went broak, a little sweet talking and waving of numbers and you have a new person willing to pay you. Do that 10 times in 1 year and that's a nice $100,000 in your pocket for doing less then a days worth of work all year. In time, people will stopp falling for it, but by then the nest generation of idiots is jumping to pony up the cash. Some times I hate having ethics... I could really use that money my self.

Sometimes the spammer is the sucker (1)

billstewart (78916) | more than 7 years ago | (#15893427)

Especially early on, you'd see a lot of spam activity where Johnny Singlewide thought he could make big money as a spammer, and bought himself a spamware kit and a case of Nigerian Herbal Fake Viagra, and found he couldn't sell the stuff. Sure, he doesn't reorder, but there were a lot of other wannabee spammers like him to sell to, and the spamware vendors didn't *mind* if he actually made a profit and ordered more because they can use him as an example instead of making up their own.

Fortunately, a lot of that market has gone away, now that the Internet boom's over and the early-adopter spammers either did or didn't make money, and it's mostly run by professionals with armies of zombies instead of armies of wannabees spammers.

Re:There are two layers at work (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 7 years ago | (#15892695)

There has to be an almost endless supply of vendors. Either that or a limited supply of vendors who are have endless money and endless stupidity.

If your theory is correct, sales from spam campaigns are zero or close to zero. Now I can understand a vendor paying for a single spam run -- after all, the vendor probably has an inbox full of spam, so "it must work or people would not send spam". However, for a person of only average intelligence, this logic will only work once: one spam run, poor to zero sales, why pay the spammer again?

So, the spammer must now find a new vendor, rinse and repeat -- the spammer needs a constant supply of new vendors. In fact, why should the spammer even send out the spam in this scenario? Would the vendor really know that the spam went out to millions of mailboxes, or just to a few addreses the vendor might have provided?

Re:There are two layers at work (1)

thogard (43403) | more than 7 years ago | (#15892799)

There is a nearly infinite number of vendors. Every business plan reference claims you need to advertise. Go to google and put in search terms about low cost advertising and poke around until you find something that isn't regional and you find a spamer or a front for one.

The other trick is that if you contact an "opt in" list you will find that they will do a free run of 100 to 1000 so you can see how it works. You will find that you get several tentative orders. I know a guy who did that and got about a 4% response rate so he send the spamer $5000. The spamer said they sent out like a million or 10 million messages and he got 3 hits on his web site and no orders. None of the tentative orders ever panned out either for a wide variety of odd excuses.

About the only spam that moves products is the embarrassment spam. Thats enhancement drug stuff. Of course thats also selling illegal drugs to children yet no DA seems to be interested. It is nearly election time in the US. If your DA is up for reelection, how about asking them (in public if you can) why they haven't done anything to stop the people selling drugs to children over the net.

Re:There are two layers at work (1)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 7 years ago | (#15894964)

"There has to be an almost endless supply of vendors."

I think this is pretty much true. Ever notice how the spam you get nowadays isn't hawking the same products it was a few years or even months ago? For a while you see stuff like "Cialis soft tabs," then it goes away. Then fake Rolexes, or Louis Vouitton handbags. Then those go away. Penny stocks for a certain company you've never heard of, they come and then they're gone, and then there's another company's penny stocks being pumped.

This indicates to me that you got a few schmucks with a bright idea, they hire spammers to sell their junk, and it doesn't work: they go away, move on, or give up. Then up steps the next schmuck with his fake watches or penis pills. Rinse, repeat.

Not true (2, Informative)

NineNine (235196) | more than 7 years ago | (#15892804)

That's not true. Spammers are paid a percentage or flat fee based on what is sold with their referrer ID. Nobody is paid just to spam. Google is the last major advertising company/industry on the web that actually pays people just to advertise, with no results. Porn and spam both figured out that per impression or per click or per email doesn't work, and there haven't been any of those programs available in either industry for at least the past 6 years (yes, they figured this out while all of the "straight" people were jerking themselves off during the dot-com bust).

Re:Not true (3, Informative)

MarkusQ (450076) | more than 7 years ago | (#15893079)

Spammers are paid a percentage or flat fee based on what is sold with their referrer ID.
I beg to differ. First, such a system would be all but unenforceable, and I can't see the spamers (who are the ones that will be risking prosecution, after all) saying, "Oh sure, you can pay me when you sell something; I can tell you guys are honest." But it also doesn't fit the data. Let's take a look at my in box, shall we?
  1. Some folks selling "C-i-a-l-l-i-s" (or trying to). Looking at the raw message, I see one http: link, to a .info domain, with nothing beyond the FQD. They could of course have a separate domain for each spammer they used, but given how specific their domain name is it doesn't seem likely.
  2. A blank spam. No subject, no body, no referrer ID.
  3. A note from my wife. No referrer ID.
  4. A pump and dump stock scam spam, no response info of any kind, and thus untraceable. No web bugs or other place to hide a refere ID.
  5. A question from one of my company's laywers. No referrer ID that I can see.
  6. A note from a psycho that believes the internet is spying on him. Spam, in a sense, but I think he's trying to warn us out of the goodness of his heart. No ID of any kind, and I suspect that if he knew his emails contain a message ID and a give an idea of the route they followed getting here, he'd faint.
  7. Image spam; quite possibly tracable (I don't know what they image is; I don't fetch 'em).
  8. Guttenspam. No payload.
  9. Another image spam.
  10. A note from my boss commenting on one of my earlier /. posts.
  11. Another anonymous stock tip.
  12. And another.
  13. Watch replicas, one link, with only a FQD.

Sorry, I'm just not seeing the referrer IDs you speak of.

--MarkusQ

Some Spammers sell products directly (1)

billstewart (78916) | more than 7 years ago | (#15893413)

Some of the spammers selling Nigerian Herbal Fake Ci41iz may be pushing it for other people, but at least in the past, many of them are doing the sales themselves. If you're the customer, you're sending your money to Johhny Singlewide, the spammer. Johnny may be buying it by the case and shipping it himself, or he may be ordering it from the manufacturer who ships directly to the end user. He might even have the manufacturer accept payments, but that takes a higher level of trust on his part. Some of the bigger operators were also involved in product design ("This week let's call it 'Nigerian Super-Herbal Enhancement Pills' and change the box color!")

On the other hand, instead of Johhny being the scammer selling "marketing" services to the sucker manufacturer, sometimes he was the sucker and the manufacturer was the scammer, selling Johnny the case of product and the spamware tools and some lists of "qualified leads".

Lots of mistakes (2, Interesting)

BrynM (217883) | more than 7 years ago | (#15892591)

I've spent an inordinate amount of time fighting spam on my server in the past. My guess is that the completely mussed up ones are a combination of the following:

  • Trying to throw off spam filters - The (possibly wrong) idea is the more mail you have to process and the more complicated you make the ruleset (learned or created), the better the chance that one they get paid for will get through. From what I understand, most spammers think of this as a kind of "war" so they have no problem wasting resources "fighting". This is not some grand scheme, but more likely the fragmented effort of various large spammers.
  • Bad translations - Spammers are global (a large number in the Pacific Rim). I'm betting that many rely on someone else to translate. Some pure gibberish spams are converted character sets [wikipedia.org] somewhere along the way.
  • Stupidity - I've seen plenty of braindead spammer mistakes (sending the recipient list cc instead of bcc, not knowing how to work the software but being willing to "make money at home")

Of those three, only one is intentional. Seeing some large nefarious purpose may be giving the spammers too much credit.

As a side note, some of my favorites are the pharmaceutical spams that say the names of the drugs, but don't offer any means of purchase let alone contact. I often wonder if some madman at GSK or Pfiser is reminding the world that v1a6r@ can be spelled so many different ways.

Re:Lots of mistakes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15892814)

The random junk is sometimes used to send coded messages. The ones full of english misspellings or random words are bit encoded files and when you put the decoded words into google I've found that some appear to contain common Arabic words. I think spam has become the new numbers stations.

Who benefits from spam? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15892594)

Nigerian royals with small dicks looking to refinance their mortgage.

I'll go out on a limb here and say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15892607)

I'm guessing that spammers profit from the spam? :-)

Weird one word spam lately... (1)

Hamster Lover (558288) | more than 7 years ago | (#15892621)

I've been receiving strange spam messages in the last few weeks containing a ficticious name in the subject line and then a single word in the message body, such as "OK", "cloud" or "door". It's really weird and there isn't an image attachment like most of the spam I've been getting lately so I don't see the point. Perhaps spammers are trying to train Bayesian filters with junk or attempting dictionary like attacks on mail servers to see what words get through and which do not.

The latest trick in the spam arsenal seems to be a crack at social engineering with emails that purport to be from Ebay, Bank of America or whatnot. If you click on the link, and the URL isn't even close to the purported source of the email, it takes you to the spammers web site where the actual marketing is done. Only the truly retarted would click on these links as I would hope that even the most neophyte of web users would know not to follow the links.

Given all the new tricks spammers seem to have up their sleeves, I doubt that spam is done yet, as much as I'd like it to be.

Re:Weird one word spam lately... (4, Interesting)

beadfulthings (975812) | more than 7 years ago | (#15893143)

Eeuwh. Believe it or not, they can cause you many Maalox moments under certain circumstances.

Take a close look at these. If (a) you have a website, and (b) they come in pairs, or especially if they come in threes, they can be a signal that somebody is evaluating you for a bit of cross-site scripting--or worse yet, that they have you. They may look as though the sender has forged and garbled your email address--but then again, they may not look like that. Little spates of one-word messages merit a second glance. They're like the odd little sounds you might hear if someone were trying the doorknobs of your house in the middle of the night.
 

Re:Weird one word spam lately... (1)

TFGeditor (737839) | more than 7 years ago | (#15893988)

"The latest trick in the spam arsenal seems to be a crack at social engineering with emails that purport to be from Ebay, Bank of America or whatnot. If you click on the link, and the URL isn't even close to the purported source of the email, it takes you to the spammers web site where the actual marketing is done."

Ever heard of "phishing"? http://www.antiphishing.org/ [antiphishing.org]

Microsoft has and would benefit from spam. (1, Troll)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#15892683)

I imagine a lot of it is a denial of service attack. Microsoft is not alone in this. A lot of spam is pure malice. It does not have contact information for a sale or even build brand awareness. Microsoft understands that free software depends on communications between programmers and users and they seek to disrupt it.

Microsoft is unique in wanting to limit network services ISP's have to offer. By creating a problem, such as 80% of the world's spam coming from their broken operating system at the end of cable modems, they gain power as a provider of policy and solutions that cover the majority of the world's computers. Such policies include forced patching which can push new EULAs, and network restrictions that nullify many free software networking advantages. My ISP forces everyone to use their SMTP server with it's arbitrary limits and they told me that M$ and AOL forced them to do it. They also limit upload speed to little better than I could get from DSL. Other infamous suggestions are charging a fee for all email and limiting online advertising to a few "trusted" companies such as themselves. From the problem they create, they seek to gain further advantage and power.

Free software and free networks threaten Microsoft. Their business model depends on selling people second rate software to perform each and every task. They gain adherents by spiffs and arbitrary grants of privilege in an asymmetric computing world. Free software does better than theirs does and makes not grade user status or create arbitrary divisions between "servers" and "work stations" as the eight flavors of Vista do. Why fork over cash to be treated like a serf when you could have all the king's software? Because M$ aims to destroy all simple networking and data exchange protocols, as outlined in their 1998 Halloween Documents. They want to make it as expensive and difficult as possible to leave them. If they don't, people will flock to the vast savings free software has to offer. Free networks and protocols give people the freedom to move.

Re:Microsoft has and would benefit from spam. (1)

aiken_d (127097) | more than 7 years ago | (#15892740)

So Microsoft intentionally ships crappy software so that spammers will disrupt communication among open source programmers? Did I get that right?

You have a very... unique viewpoint. Have you considered writing a book about the Kennedy assassination? You may just be able to come up with something original in that area, which is no small feat.

-b

Re:Microsoft has and would benefit from spam. (3, Funny)

rk (6314) | more than 7 years ago | (#15893462)

"So Microsoft intentionally ships crappy software so that spammers will disrupt communication among open source programmers? Did I get that right?"

No, silly! Microsoft intentionally ships crappy software so that spammers will disrupt communication among the Bilderbergers, The Freemasons, The Trilateral Commission, and the Council on Foreign Relations and then Microsoft sets up open source programmers as the bad guys creating the spam so that the Illuminati will hire the Knights Templar to kill off all the open source programmers.

It's brilliant. Really.

No, you got that wrong. (1)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#15894440)

So Microsoft intentionally ships crappy software so that spammers will disrupt communication among open source programmers? Did I get that right?

I think you intentionally missed it.

Microsoft is making the best of things they can't change. They are incapable of shipping a good product because non free development does not work. Spammers take advantage of that. Because M$ can not or will not simply fix their software, they must impose limitations on everyone else or they will lose market share. They try to impose those limits through vendors and by getting bad laws passed. Those laws would make it easier for them to keep their position.

None of that, of course, will stem the flood of spam and M$ is liable to take advantage of that too. It would be very easy for them to hire PR firms to collect email addresses to put on spamlists as they Astroturf various message boards. Disrupting free software communications is a stated goal of theirs.

Re:No, you got that wrong. (1)

jb.hl.com (782137) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895183)

You talk so much bollocks I'm not even going to dignify that with a proper response. You might as well say the Jews, the Freemasons, Tesco and Microsoft are all teaming up to spam the world into oblivion.

ROFLMAO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15892772)

Oh my twittering jesus, I've seen some really weird conspiracy theories around here but this one definitely takes the cake!!

Re:Microsoft has and would benefit from spam. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15893409)

You have to be one of the stupidest morons i have ever seen post. Congratulations! You win a trip to my asshole.

Re:Microsoft has and would benefit from spam. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15895560)

You win a trip to my asshole.
You forgot to give him your address.

Re:Microsoft has and would benefit from spam. (2, Funny)

Spiked_Three (626260) | more than 7 years ago | (#15893428)

Do you feel there is any connection between Islamic radicals, terrorism and Microsoft? I suppose you would argue that it's not about religion, but more about the attempt to suppress open source?

Re:Microsoft has and would benefit from spam. (1)

jb.hl.com (782137) | more than 7 years ago | (#15893583)

If Microsoft started giving every child in the world a lollypop and a cuddly toy, twitter would be right here claiming it is intended to suppress open source.

WTF? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15892686)

Why the fuck was this posted? It's the dumbest fucking question I've ever seen. It's akin to "why do telemarketers call my home?"... If you really need it explained to you that: "Yes, Jimmy, people really do buy spam advertised products" perhaps you need to go elsewhere and stop acting "geek". and the sad thing is, slashdot's not all that advanced anyway.

Re:WTF? (1)

basscomm (122302) | more than 7 years ago | (#15892791)

When was the last time a telemarketer called and said:

"In England the gap between what can be said and what can be printed israther exceptionally wide. The first morning in our own little home, darling! In England people are still hanged by the neck and floggedwith the cat o nine tails. The liberty of the individual is still believed in, almost as inthe nineteenth century. Whereare the rubber truncheons, where is the castor oil?"


With telemarketers I can usually discern what company is going to benefit if I purchase whatever they're hawking, but with the above incoherent email, I don't even know what's being advertised, much less how to get it.

Re:WTF? (2, Interesting)

fredklein (532096) | more than 7 years ago | (#15893030)

"Yes, Jimmy, people really do buy spam advertised products"

Fine. Some idiots out there buy vi@gr@ from spam. But I'd be willing to be that damn close to 0% of people WHO ACTIVELY FILTER SPAM buy stuff from spam.

So, who do they try so hard to defeat spam blockers?? Think about it- they are working so very hard in order to make their message reach the very people who specifically try to block it.

Why?

Re:WTF? (2, Insightful)

dimfeld (247690) | more than 7 years ago | (#15893173)

You're probably right about zero response from those who actively filter spam. But many people have spam filtered by their ISP or webmail service, and aren't even really aware of it. I think they are the main targets of spam filter evasion.

Re:WTF? (1)

robogun (466062) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895219)

ISP's do a lot of spam blocking, A0L is especially aggressive. Hotmail and Yahoo accounts have bayesian filters.
Furthermore, corporate mailservers filter, sometimes aggressively. How are you going to sell your v1@gr@ to bored cubicle monkeys if the goddamn company is running a barracuda.

I do! (2, Funny)

AriaStar (964558) | more than 7 years ago | (#15892726)

I get paid pretty well to deal with this crap and keeping it from getting to our clients. For all the annoyances spammers cause, I'd like to thank them for keeping me employed! And then hit them for even trying to send me spam.

mostly organised crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15892743)

russian mafia, eastern europeans, chinese govt. americans also send a lot of spam but it's not 'dark underbelly' type stuff.

Spam Incentives (1)

otisg (92803) | more than 7 years ago | (#15892765)

Hah, interesting! Here is a post on a very related topic: Social Spam and Spam Incentives [simpy.com] , as it relates to Simpy [simpy.com] . It asks about incentives, about the choices of things that are "spamvertised" (who follows "home loan" links on a site that so obviously stinks of rotten spam?), etc.

Spamming Secret Messages (1)

NetFusion (86828) | more than 7 years ago | (#15892781)

I've noticed that the vast majority of spam emails I receive are barely literate, to the point that in some cases one can hardly discern the product or service being advertised.

My theory is such spam is being used as a covert channel of communication. If they send a secret message to a million people instead of just the intended recieptient, it hides the secret of the sender / reciever connection in the noise aswell.

lots of kinds of spam (3, Informative)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 7 years ago | (#15892790)

I think there are lots of different kinds of spam, and therefore lots of different answers to the OP's question. Examples:

-A spam that they want you to click on in order to see porn. If you click on it, it really does lead to porn, and they get ad revenue.

-A spam that's trying to find out whether your address actually receives mail. If you click on the opt-out link, they've verified that the address works. They then add your e-mail to a list that they send to other spammers.

-The Nigerian scam. Yes, people really do fall for this. There was a famous case here in Orange County recently where a rich, elderly doctor blew hundreds of thousands of dollars on it.

For a spammer who owns a botnet, the cost of sending a spam is zero. When your product costs zero to produce, you can come up with a lot of ways to sell it, and still make a profit.

Re:lots of kinds of spam (1)

munpfazy (694689) | more than 7 years ago | (#15893057)

A spam that's trying to find out whether your address actually receives mail. If you click on the opt-out link, they've verified that the address works. They then add your e-mail to a list that they send to other spammers.


I've long suspected that most of the spam that doesn't advertise a product or offer a virus-laden attachment falls into this category. It seems a reasonable explanation for both the long strings of random prose spam and the short nonsense sentence and single-word spam.

In a world of honeypots and throw-away addresses, and bandwidth which is limited (if only by the cost of a zombie net or the time spent hunting for ill configured servers), it must be to someone's advantage to try to remove bogus addresses from lists. Using a message which really isn't spam when culling is probably the best way to avoid getting artificial bounces from spam filters. Besides, if you happen to be in the business of selling addresses rather than penis pills, there's no reason to spend time carefully trying to engineer *real* spam to get through filters.

Back on the topic of the main thread, I've always found it hard to believe that there exist people in this world who would sign up for a home mortgage advertised in misspelled, all-caps, barely intelligible spam. Buying something shady - like prescription meds or bestial pr0n - isn't too hard to believe. Embarrassed customers expect to deal with shady people. But it seems like a crazy way to do banking. It's shocking that something like that could work, even at the level of a few idiots per million addresses. Perhaps there are enough people trying to do sneaky business with property to which they don't legally have title to make such a thing worthwhile.

Re:lots of kinds of spam (1)

gregmac (629064) | more than 7 years ago | (#15893423)

I've long suspected that most of the spam that doesn't advertise a product or offer a virus-laden attachment falls into this category. It seems a reasonable explanation for both the long strings of random prose spam and the short nonsense sentence and single-word spam.


I think that is mostly to poison spam filters. If you mark it as junk, you're adding 'regular' words to your filters, which increases the possibilities of false positives, and eventually will make the filter useless.

Re:lots of kinds of spam (1)

munpfazy (694689) | more than 7 years ago | (#15893548)

I think that is mostly to poison spam filters. If you mark it as junk, you're adding 'regular' words to your filters, which increases the possibilities of false positives, and eventually will make the filter useless.


Certainly possible.

But, it seems to me that if your goal is to generate false positives in spam filters, you could choose much better material: namely, real email. It wouldn't be hard to mine random mailing list archives and put together messages which are clearly recognizable to humans as spam but which are composed entirely of blocks of material taken from real email conversations. That way you get realistic word usage patterns and all the structural cues that make a message seem legitimate.

I'm no expert on how modern adaptive filters work, but I'd imagine that picking out message bodies which contain single words or unbroken 400 word paragraphs in formal prose with no signatures or salutations would be a pretty simple task. Even a dumb, brute-force word count would almost certainly find a difference between the half page of project Gutenberg text I tend to receive and the vast majority of my legitimate correspondence.

Of course, it's entirely possible that spammers are even *less* expert on how such filters work, and that what they're doing is far from optimal.

I get these too. (3, Interesting)

TheZorch (925979) | more than 7 years ago | (#15893027)

My regular email address gets them from time to time but its my Final Fantasy XI PlayOnline email address that gets them the most.

They are emails with gibberish for subject lines and gibberish for contents. They are sentences which make no sense what so ever, random words put together that have little meaning at all. There's no ad, no link, and the addresses they are sent from are bogus (I know, I tried finding them). A few of these emails have originating address of @ds1.yahoo.com or @server1.paypal.com or @ddl.amazon.com and so on and so forth. The actual address itself is made up of random letters and numbers.

My theory, like those suggested aboove, is that these emails are sent by "Botnets" to random email addresses in order to see which ones don't bounce. This can be in preparation for sending ad-like spam or a prelude to a virus infestation. Or, like someone else suggested it could be a form of coded communication which is widely broadcasted in order to prevent the authorities from find out its true intended destination.

Now that's an interesting theory... (1)

Elbowgeek (633324) | more than 7 years ago | (#15893497)

Almost like the numbers stations on short wave radio in a way. Kinda. Sorta. Or not really.

Still, that was an interesting answer. Thanks!

You don't have to click on it (1)

Kawahee (901497) | more than 7 years ago | (#15893489)

You don't have to click on the messages in spam to benefit it. If your ad provider gives you money per n impressions, then you just send out a reasonably legit looking email and hope that maybe 5% open it. 5% of 1 million = 50000, and if your ad company gives you a "click" for every 1000 impressions, that's 50x whatever the ad is. If you're doing something obscure like real estate that gives a few dollars per "click", then churning out about a million emails an hour will leave you with more than enough to put the kids the college.

Re:You don't have to click on it (1)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 7 years ago | (#15894579)

Your logic is right, but I'm really curious about your numbers. I would have expected much less than 1%, and maybe a dime per view/click.

Are your numbers approximately accurate, or are you just inventing them for the sake of the point?

Re:You don't have to click on it (1)

Kawahee (901497) | more than 7 years ago | (#15895545)

One of my friends has an ad-system on his page and he says that real estate ads pull in a few dollars per "click". Nothing to back that up apart from what he's said.

The 5% came from the fact that you want to send out a legit-looking email, say a family letter from a person with a fairly generic name. If you just send a family letter without buzzwords like viagra and cheap software or s3x, it should pass most spam filters and you can put the ads at the bottom. When you get an email from "John Smith" about his recent holiday, then you're more likely to open it. I know for most spam it hardly gets opened, but given that you're not looking to sell viagra or shares you don't necessarily need to worry about making the email look like spam by using tricks to get past spam filters, making it more likely the end-user will open it.

I'm surprised (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15893917)

that the spammers haven't started data mining mailing lists and using legit text from those lists along with their spam garbage.

Spam is paid per-click, not per-sent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15893980)

Spam isn't paid per unit sent - there's no way for the payer to monitor that.

Rather, spammers are paid per unit sale - and, apparently, there is no honor
among thieves, because the second biggest complaint of spammers is
sellers (that is, the people who hire spammers to advertize goods they
sell) is that sellers bug out on them, cheat them, or simply refuse to
pay.

Now, as to the null spams that have been flying around.... who knows. Conspiracy
hypothesis abound, but I've not gotten any clear evidence in any direction

But I don'tike spam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15894532)

what about

spam spam baked beans and spam

it doesn''t have much spam in it.

fad in to the spam spam spam spamity spam soung.

you get the point

Sorry had to do it

Monty P.

Ps sorry but to lazy to look up the correct quote

Spam takes money/resources from YOU (1)

mabu (178417) | more than 7 years ago | (#15894581)

Here's my last week's stats:

Date, Mail recieved, Blocked spam
Aug 2 00:00:00, 5080, 25147
Aug 3 00:00:00, 4596, 24733
Aug 4 00:00:00, 4243, 27209
Aug 5 00:00:00, 1904, 24784
Aug 6 00:00:00, 2269, 24360
Aug 7 00:00:00, 4725, 32358
Aug 8 00:00:00, 5011, 33012
Aug 9 00:00:00, 5361, 33811

If you look at the stats over the last week for one of my servers, you note that anywhere from 85-91+% of the mail received is spam. This is a huge noise-to-signal ratio, and this doesn't even include a certain percentage of spam which escapes our relay blacklists (we're not using content based filtering so the whole notion of spammers misspelling things to bypass these controls is moot for us).

The point is, spammers use up your resources; your ISP's resources, and your ISP's ISP's resources. All of this translates to higher costs to do business online and reduced efficiency. Any entity that consumes this much resources, at some point, has to find a leak somewhere where the money can flow back in some form to them.

It's kind of like the world's worst band. Even though their music sucks, if they can get enough "airplay" they will always find someone to buy their crap. Since, in the world of spamming, the cost of operation is so cheap (due to stealing, computer tampering and law enforcements apathy towards tracking them down and prosecuting them), there's a good enough margin so that there's money to be made.

Most people don't realize how much traffic on the internet is "noise". I'd estimate that at least half -- half (maybe more like 70-80%) of all internet traffic is completely unsolicited crap consisting of spam e-mail and automated http and port scanning traffic. It's mostly e-mail, but if you look at logs from any web, ssh or ftp server, you'll see a never ending stream of port scans as well. If we could eliminate this bogus traffic, the Internet would be 3-10+ times faster without any infrastructure upgrades.

Contact your local attorney general. Tell them you demand that they take action against spammers and people who tamper with others' computers. This is a felony. Why the feds aren't prosecuting, who knows? But there are plenty of perpetrators that are easily tracked down in domestic jurisdictions.

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...