Slashdot Log In
UK ISPs to Shut Down Spamvertised Websites
Posted by
michael
on Thu Aug 19, 2004 11:05 AM
from the LART dept.
from the LART dept.
JebuZ writes "The Register is currently reporting that UK ISPs are targeting ecommerce websites run by spammers in a new 'get tough' policy on junk mail. ISPs belonging to the London Internet Exchange (LINX) have voted through a code of practice which gives them the mandate to shut down websites promoted through spam, even if junk mail messages are sent through a third-party or over a different network. The move is intended to remove the financial incentive to send spam." There's also a BBC story.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
How long... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How long... (Score:3, Interesting)
Or
Address of 0wn3d computer
Offshore server
Doesn't do any good for those which run scripts on open or 0wn3d servers and forward email, i.e. phishing
Re:How long... (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, like most of the people I deal with at work, my email signature includes our 1-800 number.
Parent
Re:How long... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd assume that they'd check things out first. Besides, spamvertised websites are rather easy to recognize: I think 95% of all *.biz and *.info sites are spamvertised sites. There's also this whole thing about using fake names, no contact information, companies based in countries where the law isn't taken very seriously or where the law allows spamming, etc.
Parent
Re:How long... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How long... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:How long... (Score:5, Insightful)
Worse yet, spammers will put random innocent web sites in spam just to poison the process.
They'll do it. It's an obvious way to get ISPs to stop blocking web sites.
Parent
Another nail in the spam coffin then (Score:5, Insightful)
The harder spam becomes to send the better it is. There is no instant cure, stop watching Oprah you american. The real world requires you to work had on multiple fronts to solve a problem. This is just one tiny drop on the hot plate. But together with all the other little drops it is making a difference.
Parent
Re:How long... (Score:5, Informative)
They have been doing that for years. It's called a joe job [everything2.com], after the first victim of such a scam. These are generally quite easy to detect, though, so they do not generally lead to the victim's website being shut off. The main damage is in the annoyance and the bounces and responses received by the victim, which constitute something akin to a DDoS attack.
In any case, the existence of joe jobs is no reason to penalize actual spammers and stop them from profiting from their spam runs. The only way to do that is shutting off their websites.
Parent
Correction (Score:3, Insightful)
This should have been: the existence of joe jobs is no reason not to penalize actual spammers.
Re:How long... (Score:4, Informative)
Not quite. Assume sites X and Y, spammer S that is hired by X (or may be X), user J, and another spammer, T. J is not connected with X, Y, S, or T. A joe job is when S sends mail advertising X, setting the from address to J.
What the original poster is talking about is the case where Y hires T to send spam advertising X. If T sets the return address to J, then that will also be a joe job, but that is not relevant here.
Parent
Re:How long... (Score:3, Interesting)
I know, but that too has come to be known as a joe job (at least in the news.admin.net-abuse.email newsgroup), since it's done with the same objective: to get X shut down or to harrass them away from the net. It's generally equally ineffective.
Re:How long... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:How long... (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, this is different. They are going to shut of sites that are advertised in the spam, so all a spammer has to do is send out a 'free' promotion for a valid website. The addresses used in the spam mail are irrelevant, what they are looking for is site addresses included in the body of the spam.
This is already going on. Last month I got a notification from our ISP at work of a possible spam violation (a very annoying, threatening notification) on our site. It appears that a spammer included our domain name in one of his messages and our ISP was alerted. I explained the we did NOT send out the message, was NOT selling viagra and did NOT want the traffic generated from the spam message, so we still have a website and that was the end of it.
What happens if a spammer, rather than just including my address, crafts a marketing message promoting my site. Might be a little harder to convince my ISP that I didn't initiate the spam.
Parent
Re:Spam Whiners: Shit or get off the pot (Score:5, Insightful)
It wasn't a whine nor a complaint. And it can have very serious reprocussions. How happy would you be if your legitimate, non-spamming online business was blacklisted because someone else forged fake spam?
I want actions taken, and I want them taken *now*. Collateral damage? Unavoidable -- any solution strong enough to work is going to cause collateral damage.
Wonderful attitude. "Fuck the innocent as long as I'm happy (and it doesn't happen to me)"
This system could be useful, but considering there was no detailed mention of how they're going to deal with this potential problem its a valid question.
Parent
Re:How long... (Score:5, Funny)
"No! I swear I've been framed! I would *never* send out spam for my site. I'm totally legit! We here at xhegfr.24873xx.pills4u.com are a 100% above-board business!"
Parent
And this is interesting how? (Score:5, Insightful)
# UBE ("spam"): sending unsolicited bulk e-mail, using UBE, even if not sent from American Internet, to advertise (spamvertise) your site, providing any service to spammers such as mailboxes or Web sites.
Is this just now catching on? Shocking.
Re:And this is interesting how? (Score:5, Interesting)
Complaints start rolling in. If its not caught soon, dsbl lists will start blocking the ISP. Is the spam legit? Lets contact the owner of the site. Not legit? Prove it. Usually, it IS legit. We investigate thoroughly and determine the source of said spam, and if its truly not legit spam, done by someone else (this *has* happened with us) then we notify spamcop or whatever list needed that an investigation has been done and its taken care of.
So, with due diligence when it comes to enforcing policies such as this, and not a "shoot first ask questions later" attitude toward shutting off sites, then it becomes a reasonable policy.
Parent
Re:And this is interesting how? (Score:3, Informative)
No, they don't. Most, like SpamCop [spamcop.net] list the origin of the spam. Not the spamvertized website, but the IP address of the sending mail server. The place where the spam is actually coming from, whether or not it's a joe-job.
One of the few blacklists that lists web addresses (well, their respective IP addys) is SPEWS [spews.org], which generally lists only after persistent spamming has been ignored b
Re:And this is interesting how? (Score:3, Insightful)
Also from the article: "The new BCP (Best Current Practice) will raise the baseline, making the worldwide acceptable minimum standard tougher. We will be working to spread this standard beyond the UK and asking for support from the UK government at WSIS"
This is the interesting bit - I seems like a step in the right dire
What really bothers me... (Score:3, Insightful)
Anti-spammers have always maintained that ISPs should kill the websites of known spammers. That's what a number of the blacklists out there are about -- they list ISPs that don't kick off websites that have been advertised through spamming, even if the spam was sent from a different ISP.
This is a good thing. Spammers should lose their Internet access, period. They should also lose their lives, but ISPs aren't really in the position to do that kind of thing.
So
Third-partying (Score:3, Funny)
2. Send out spam promoting
3. See
4. Profit!!!!
Re:Third-partying (Score:5, Funny)
2. Send out spam promoting
3. See
4. Have your site DOSed by a hoard of angry slashdotters
5. Bankruptcy
Parent
This will only be marginally effective... (Score:5, Interesting)
Furthermore, this does nothing to the spammers whose hosters are in collusion with them, and who are profiting themselves.
Re:This will only be marginally effective... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:This will only be marginally effective... (Score:4, Interesting)
-matthew
Parent
This is the way it should go (Score:5, Interesting)
IMHO, the companies, who sell their products through the spamvertized channels should be put into the same tight squeeze. I want to see Pfizer sweat for those Viagra ads I receive day in and day out in hundreds.
Nothing new.... (Score:5, Funny)
BTW: how gullible can you get? A single opt-in list with about 5% of the Internet-connected population on it? Wow.
... and thus the casualties begin ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm. Sounds like a really, really good idea now doesn't it?
-- MG
i can imagine all kinds of complications here (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:i can imagine all kinds of complications here (Score:3, Insightful)
You're being retarded.
Of course you can get spam that links to a web site hosted in Russia or North Korea. This isn't about them. This is about gett
Get a B1GGER p3nis with L1N UX! (here you go) (Score:5, Funny)
*applause* (Score:5, Interesting)
But what about repeat offenders? Those that open up a new website and advertize by spam on that site, too? Setting up a webpage isn't too hard these days, and one could always send one's servers offshore. This needs to be an international policy.
Not just shut down. (Score:5, Interesting)
That allows the people who have been spammed to identify and track the spammer.
Stopping (Score:3, Informative)
Spammers will stop spamming when it stops being profitable. If every time they spam, they get sued and have to pay money to attorneys and plaintiffs, they will stop -- BECAUSE it destroys their business model.
Good thinking (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, if the spammers are getting a [very low percentage] click-through number, I wonder how many of those are people who have never gotten spam before. The number of people on the internet is growing so quickly, I'd imagine that many of the click-throughs are actually people who have never seen a "bulk unsolicited e-mail" before.
i need you help (Score:4, Funny)
i want assure you this no spam i found you email by search web i son very important buznes man who in some politcal truble now rite and need you help get money out bank
in case you no believe you go see please his site SCO [sco.com]
PLEASE TO HEAR YOU RESPONSE.
N!GTXBALU GNTEMBI
darn filter won't let me submit in all caps
Code of practice not law... (Score:5, Informative)
Then if the chaps framing you are in the UK there's legal action you might take against them.
This is a good thing. It's not a draconian law, it's a business consortium agreeing that they they to focus on an issue and deciding common policy on how to address it.
Code of practice, not law.
Re:Code of practice not law... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a Very Good Thing (Score:4, Insightful)
This tumor is so rooted in the Internet, that there is no way to cut it all out without removing some healthy tissue. There is probably no perfect solution to this problem, but it HAS to be addressed.
I truly can't see people resorting to trying to advertise competitor's web sites via SPAM to get them shut down. They'd open themselves up to way too much liability if that actually happened.
IMHO: This solution does a pretty decent job of targetting the tumor without removing much healthy tissue. Again, no solution will perfectly home in on just spammers... innocents will always get caught up in the effort to remove this problem. The trick is to just come up with items and balance it's positive effects against its negative effects.
How many spamvertised sites are in the UK? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is already common practice for spammers to use bullet-proof hosts (which is even mentioned in TFA).
So I don't think this move will change anything as far as spam goes, but the potential for abuse (see some of the previous comments) will increase, given that most sites hosted by UK ISPS are legitimate.
Not a way to create denial of service attacks. (Score:4, Informative)
The LINX [linx.net] Best Current Practice on Unsolicited Bulk E-mail ("the spam BCP [linx.net]") is carefully written so as to avoid being a way to create denial of service attacks.
LINX does not adjudicate complaints; our ISPs members do. You can complain to an ISP for tolerating spamvertised web sites just like you can complain to them for tolerating someone sending spam. If they follow Best Practice they will cut off the web site if, only if, and not before they satisfy themselves that the spam was sent by or with the consent of the web site owner.
Of course, it is possible that they could get it wrong; miscarriages of justice do occur in every area of life. This is not a reason not to have any rules at all. It is up to the ISP to take care when considering a complaint so as not to cut their customers off without good reason. Naturally, some will consider this an unnecessary delay - and even evidence that the ISP is not serious about cancelling the account. Well, it's not possible to please everybody all the time; you've just got to craft the best policy you can and run with it.
Malcolm Hutty
LINX Regulation Officer.
Why not do it yourself? (Score:4, Interesting)
Every time I mention this, someone says, "Oh my God! You're going to block some good little Mom&Pop store because they share a server with a spammer!" If that is what you are thinking, you didn't read my previous paragraph. I block any email WITH A LINK TO A SERVER that is in my block list. I DO NOT block any email originating from a server in the block list.
As this article explains, the incentive is to remove the profit margin from spam. I think my method works better than kicking them off the server if my method was used by a majority of the Internet users. The reason is that my method hopes the spammers keep the same IP addresses. If you kick them off the server, they change IP addresses and I have to block the new one.
Quick! (Score:3, Funny)
Help me keep a new spammer from being created! (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, my friend's boss is putting a lot of pressure on him to send these emails. My friend asked me for help but I flatly refused regardless of price. He really doesn't want to do it, but his boss is leaning on him, and his wife's opinion is that since he's getting paid for it, he should just do the work (my retort being that if his boss wanted to pay him to star in gay porn, then would he still be expected to do so?).
I've explained at great length that this is immoral, probably illegal, and a really stupid idea all around. He agrees, but his boss really wants that check from the client and I don't know the boss well enough to confront him directly.
Any suggestions on what I can do to put an early end to my friend's career as a spammer? I love the guy like a brother and don't want to see him rendered unemployable and hated by his family and friends, but I also don't want him to lose his job.
My best idea so far is to get him to convince his boss to start with a very small batch of spam (say, 1000 addresses) and to have my friend report back after a few minutes that the batch has been sent (but without actually doing it). Then, about five minutes later, call the client and scream, curse, and scream some more at them for filling my inbox with their crap. Get about 10 other people to do the same thing, perhaps even in person at the company (a restaurant), until the client keels over dead in their panic to call of the "advertising campaign". Note that my friend is the only technical person at his company, so the odds of anyone other than him being able to determine whether those 1000 test emails were actually sent is roughly zero, and if there were any question, I'm probably the person that his boss would call to seek confirmation ("Yep, looks like he sent 'em at 11:30. What? The client went out of business at 11:45? What a coincidence!").
To repeat: "my friend" is not me, so don't bother lecturing me on the evils of spamming. I just want to help him stay an honest man.
Re:So, to shut down my competitor... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Increase your Manhood with Microsoft! (Score:3, Funny)
Micro? Soft?
That's as inappropriate a name for a peni-spammer as you're likely to get.
Re:SDOS (Score:3, Funny)
Re:SDOS (Score:5, Funny)
Another common type of attack, though not spam-related, is the Distributed Relay Denial of Service. A recent Slashdot story covered the Politically Conceived Denial of Service.
And let's not forget the Systemwide Offensive Linking All Remote Internet Sites, a truly ghastly crime against nature, itself second only to the destructive powers of the terrorist organization known as the Society for the Literal Annihilation of Sites Hosting Data Oriented to Technology (motto: Nothing Ever Withstands the Society; Fear Our Response. Now Eventually Readers Duplicate Stories, Stories That Unfortunately Flopped the First Time, Horribly. Although Taco May Attempt to Tend Things, Evil Results Somehow.)
This message brought to you by the Key Atomic Benefits Office of Mankind.
Parent
Re:An alternative idea (Score:4, Informative)
No, most spammers profit by re-selling their spamming services. Spam is a remarkably low-hit, low-margin, and very unreliable advertising vehicle.
Where the real spammers make their money is in creating the *illusion* that you, too, can make your fortune by paying them to send out 1,000,000 emails. In a way, spammers are like the online equivalent of those huckster-like classified ads in the backs of tabloid papers. They aren't selling any product themselves... they are selling an advertising service to normal people operating under the pretenses that there is money to be made.
In fairness, I'm sure there are citable examples of spammers who made money selling product. I'm just willing to bet that those are the exception, not the rule.
Parent