Slashdot Log In
Obama Beats McCain In Spam Landslide
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Oct 08, 2008 07:50 AM
from the well-isn't-that-unfortunate dept.
from the well-isn't-that-unfortunate dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The New York Times runs an article about the spammers' choice of presidential candidate. From the article: 'According to Secure Computing Corp., spammers were nearly seven times more likely to slap Obama's name in the subject line than McCain's during September. The bulk of Obama's lead in the spam wars came from a massive blitz early in the month.' Secure Computing released additonal numbers for the past weeks, and McCain was able to close the gap in the latest spammers' poll."
Related Stories
Submission: Obama beats McCain in 'spam-off' by landslide by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.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.
This is stupid. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is such non-news. Does anyone really care who spammers use in a subject line for spam?
Political interest? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me that the spammers must be working on a basis of whatever words most likely to interest the reader into clicking further, so it's perhaps an indicator of how interesting "person X" is overall at a given time. I've seen various celebrity names pop up, and I believe that Obama's did awhile back before the newer spams containing Palin's name in conjunction with various sexual keywords.
Parent
Actually what I worry about more (Score:3, Insightful)
is the amount of spam email I get that is blatantly pro-Obama propaganda.
Either his campaign is hiring them, or someone who supports him is spending a HELL of a lot of money (and violating campaign finance laws) hiring them.
I don't vote for spammers or corrupt chicago crooks. Therefore, I won't vote Obama.
You too? (Score:2, Informative)
I tried to submit stories on this MONTHS ago, after the Obama campaign somehow got my email and started sending me their constant spam messages. Content directly traced back, emails all about their campaign stops, from "David Plouffe", "Michele Obama", links to their blog entries on the official Obama site, etc... but the headers most DEFINITELY through known spam houses and zombie spam networks.
For some reason, Slashdot wasn't interested that the Obama campaign does this. I'd think it should be a major con
Re: (Score:2)
Although I wouldn't put it past anyone's campaign to do these kinds of things, it's quite possible that there are simply a large number of loose cannons in the spam world who want to do Obama a favor by spreading his name around. Let's face it, spammers and their targets are not the sharpest knives in the drawer so the spammers are likely to think they are helping their candidate even if they're not, and as to intended spam targets, well, they're an oblique proof of evolution in that apparently it sometime
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a hypothesis: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Break+in+Republican+laptop [google.com]
Another hypothesis could be that people are signing up their "friends" (often inadvertently, but sometimes on purpose). This was really popular back in college (as I recall) by signing up known person's emails as a prank.
Remember at the Dem's convention they were collecting cell phone numbers of the numbers of family and
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Last time I checked, "Freedom of Speech" actually meant something in this country--regardless of political preference.
Re:Actually what I worry about more (Score:5, Informative)
Oh come on, .be email address for gods sake.
I've gotten plenty of Obama or/vs McCain mails too and I have a
These mails are NOT targeted, they are just sent out at random based on some lousy email-list; So yes, that implies they are coming from some spammer/bot-net.
However, receiving a mail from candidate X does not necessarily mean that X (or his spin-team) asked given spammer to send these out. Jumping to that conclusion is just bad-mouthing IMHO. In fact, I find it much more likely that
* the spammer is simply sending out spam to un-train the filters
* the spammer prefers candidate Y and tries to make X look bad by drowning people in annoying X-spam, whether Y paid given spammer for this or not is impossible for me to find out.
* the message contains some malicious payload
Frankly, I don't care, it's going straight to the recycle bin anyway.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They probably just scrape headlines and look for common words that are proper nouns (capitalized) hoping that these will attract interest. Obama has had more hype than McCain for the most part.
http://www.google.com/trends?q=obama%2C+mccain&ctab=0&geo=US&geor=all&date=2008&sort=1 [google.com]
Most likely because, like Palin, he entered the national spotlight suddenly and so people aren't as familiar with him as they are with McCain.
Re: (Score:2)
who spammers use in a subject line for spam
it's perhaps an indicator of how interesting "person X" is overall at a given time
Re:Political interest? (Score:5, Interesting)
"I'm (hoping) analyzing spam headers is part of your job description, otherwise you have way too much spare time :D"
I know I look at my spam folder and could come up with similar "analysis" without spending much time or effort. It is usually pretty obvious what the trends are.
Most of us know that spam filters are not perfect, so we scan our spam folders for false positives. Every now and then I open one up, mostly just curious as to what the scam is.
A few months ago I opened one up. It was an email confirming my registration with some dating site. I was perusing it, looking for the scam, when I noticed it had the last 4 digits of the credit card used to open this account. Strangely, it was the same as my credit card!
I checked my bank website and sure enough, somebody was using my credit card. They foolishly used my email account, and I use unique email addresses when I buy things online. I canceled my card immediately and contacted the company associated with that email address.
I convinced them it was likely real and suggested they contact a security firm. Sure enough, a few days later, the FBI called and thanked me for being persistent and asked for any more info I had. They indeed had been hacked (SQL injection), about a year earlier, and about 90% of the credit cards used at that site over the last year had been canceled due to fraud.
In my case, I was able to cancel my card within hours of it being compromised, and about $1000 worth of fraudulent purchases wiped off my card with almost no questions. It would have been a lot uglier and more hassle if I did not catch this until the statement came. I now get a daily statement in email and scan it thoroughly.
Bottom line, a little basic analysis of your spam is a good idea. Doesn't have to be your job to find benefit. To the best of my knowledge nobody got busted, but that gaping hole was fixed, and that company now uses a trusted service for their shopping cart application.
Parent
Re:Technically, it is (Score:4, Funny)
Surely that would be the X-Spam header?
Now... all we have to do is get the spammers to start using it, and we can all get on with our real jobs ;)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It is at least as relevant as the Halloween mask race. Well it could be. That is why it is interesting.
419 (Score:4, Funny)
But who do the 419 scam jerks want?
Re:419 (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Duh! (Score:5, Funny)
Clearly there's no point in the spammers forging the send as McCain, he openly admits he doesn't know how to use email!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
they already do [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Obama is the king on internet. (Score:4, Informative)
Google is evil! (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A few more words... On youtube, Videos against Obama posted by Hillary/McCain supporters or independents have low click counts and posts against Obama are frequently missing. This begins the age of internet Big Brother!
Hint: Using the N word will get something censored.
Re:Google is evil! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
oh iiiiis it. (Score:2, Flamebait)
and the person you label as 'big brother' openly declares support about net neutrality and lectures about what freedom and equal opportunity means to internet and how it is tied to network neutrality on his website and policies.
dont spurt crap without knowing about what you speak about next time.
Re:oh iiiiis it. (Score:4, Insightful)
and the person you label as 'big brother' openly declares support about net neutrality and lectures about what freedom and equal opportunity means to internet and how it is tied to network neutrality on his website and policies.
Politicians preaching one thing and practicing the exact opposite has been around since the dawn of politics.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
No surprise (Score:5, Funny)
Spammers peddle in CHANGE (in size) and HOPE (for a lower mortgage rate).
Easy explanation (Score:2)
Then again, McCain is for the same nanny-state, so this explains nothing!
Re: (Score:2)
This is not that the spammers have backed Obama with their support. It is that more spam delivered has the string 'Obama' than 'McCain' - it is a crude (but independant) measure of the popularity or current awareness of each individual.
Re: (Score:2)
Meaningful? (Score:4, Insightful)
So thats the trend, but how is it meaningful?
If the spammers are doing it, I assume thats because the majority of their target customers are aligned similarly with Obama. Makes sense, since Obama's online presence is considerably more progressive than McCains... Still doesn't say a whole lot about anything.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Still doesn't say a whole lot about anything.
Isn't that what politics is all about?
Re:Meaningful? (Score:5, Funny)
It could be the opposite - "OMG exclusive video of Obama eating babies !!!!eleventyone".
Disclaimer: Obama does not eat babies. But I heard he huffs kittens.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If the spammers are doing it, I assume thats because the majority of their target customers are aligned similarly with Obama.
but I thought only stupid people responded to spam. What could this mean?
Obvious Link (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Obvious Link (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Obama is the candidate of choice by nearly 90% of the rest of the world. It's no secret that if you want people to read your spam, you'll put his name in the header. He's popular.
That's as may be, but spammers in general are simply idiots who try to exploit people that are even dumber than themselves. I think you are overestimating their intellectual capabilities by quite a wide margin.
IMO it is more likely that these spam campaigns are yet another way of trying to piss off voters with the candidate named in the subject.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Or...maybe it's because they view Obama supporters as more gullible and likely to respond?
*ducks*
ahhh in a perfect world... (Score:2)
Re:ahhh in a perfect world... (Score:4, Funny)
In a perfect world, their right to vote would be forfeited and they would be in a 10'x12' cell.
But in the real world of economic uncertainty, can we afford to give them that much space? Might be better to squeeze a few in there...
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:ahhh in a perfect world... (Score:5, Interesting)
Who cares who spammers want to be President? In a perfect world, their right to vote would be forfeited and they would be in a 10'x12' cell.
This has nothing to do with who spammers want to be president. This has to do with whose name spammers think will get somebody to click on a link.
My estimate is, they're probably right. Obama supporters will clilck to see what their candidate is up to, and Obama opposers will click to see what their opposition is up to.
McCain, on the other hand, usually isn't up to anything much. I doubt either side would be easily lured into clicking a link, because he's pretty boring.
Parent
So which party... (Score:2)
...nominated Giant Tallywhacker?
rj
Well... (Score:2)
not impressed (Score:2)
Have to say it. (Score:2)
Because it is easier for them to spell.
My Favorite So Far.... (Score:4, Funny)
McCain says "I want to invade your vaginas"
Re: (Score:2)
Um.... A.D.D. much?
-Mike
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You're confusing "technical people" with "/. users". The two intersect, but they aren't congruent.