Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Spam

Whatever Happened To Sanford "Spamford" Wallace? 45

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the dj-master-spam dept.
Tackhead writes "People of a certain age — the age before email filters were effective, may remember a few mid-90s buzzwords like 'bulletproof hosting' and 'double opt-in.' People may remember that Hormel itself conceded that although 'SPAM' referred to their potted meat product, the term 'spam' could refer to unsolicited commercial email. People may also remember AGIS, Cyberpromo, Sanford 'Spam King' Wallace, and Walt Rines. Ten years after a 2003 retrospective on Rines and Wallace, Ars Technica reminds us that the more things change, the more they stay the same."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Whatever Happened To Sanford "Spamford" Wallace?

Comments Filter:
  • ytcracker (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 25, 2013 @12:25PM (#45782207)
    ytcracker may not be a household name, or as well known known as Wallace, but he is the undisputed spam rap king. If ytc taught me anything, it is that every time a spammer is taken down, there are plenty more ready to take his place. The fact is that, even today, spam pays. Until people suddenly wisen up and stop falling for scams and stop being receptive to advertising in general, there will continue to be spam. Spam pays, folks, and leads to hacking.

    Number one thing most spammers are most excited about right now: Microsoft's pledge to soon screw people who are still happy with/stuck on Windows XP. You think botnets are bad now, wait until M$ completely stops patching XP. I can't wait to cash in.
  • by Somebody Is Using My (985418) on Wednesday December 25, 2013 @12:31PM (#45782235) Homepage

    He's in debt to the courts for millions, fails to show up for his court appearances and has repeatedly returned to a life of crime. It's not even as if his lawyer is getting him off. He's a continual recidivist and shows no intention of reforming his ways. Even if the cases themselves were merely civil disputes, his failure to live up his court-ordered responsibilities should have consequences.

    Why isn't this jackass in jail yet? He's far more deserving than some poor punk who had the bad luck to get caught with a baggie of pot in his pocket.

  • by Tom (822) on Wednesday December 25, 2013 @12:52PM (#45782319) Homepage Journal

    Because our justice system has turned from protecting the public good and society in general towards protecting individual property and particular interest laws.

    That's why you can spam millions of people for years (do the math, even at half a second per mail, that's quite a few wasted lifetimes) and get a slap on the wrist ($4 mio? if he weren't a fool that would've been pocket change for an Internet criminal - see Kimble).

    But copy a few MP3s and you're down for your life savings. Have a bit of pot on you and off to jail.

    It's an entirely different tragedy of the commons - the justice system utterly fails to protect the public at large from deaths by a million cuts, i.e. by small offenses that multiply into the thousands and millions.

  • by girlintraining (1395911) on Wednesday December 25, 2013 @01:24PM (#45782421)

    Why isn't this jackass in jail yet? He's far more deserving than some poor punk who had the bad luck to get caught with a baggie of pot in his pocket.

    You seem to be misunderstanding: A failed businessman is much less of a problem than a failed worker. Smoking pot = less productivity. That's why we throw him in jail for years at a go, whereas the failed businessman at least was making an attempt to improve the glory of our lord and savior, the Dollar. I only wish this statement was entirely sarcastic, instead of merely mostly. :(

  • Re:ytcracker (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Arker (91948) on Wednesday December 25, 2013 @01:51PM (#45782553) Homepage Journal

    "Until people suddenly wisen up and stop falling for scams and stop being receptive to advertising in general, there will continue to be spam."

    Insightful comment. The spammers, revolting subhumans though they are, are simply a symptom of the real problem. And the big "legitimate" marketing companies are signs of the same problem. A sane person would go out of their way to avoid purchasing anything that they saw advertised, and if a significant percentage of the population were sane advertising and marketing would be dead, and all the people currently stuck in those soul-leeching jobs could become productive members of the economy instead.

  • by benjfowler (239527) on Wednesday December 25, 2013 @03:40PM (#45783131)

    Americas problem isn't even its sky-high incarceration rate.

    It's problems lie is its viciously individualistic culture that entertains no notion of collection action or responsibility; tolerance of regulatory capture; and tolerance of conflicts of interest. This is all enabled by popular myths that pervade American culture, that anybody can get rich if they work hard enough, and that all poor people, by extension, are cunts.

    Deal with the conflict-of-interest issue, and then things like the commercial, for-profit school-to-jail pipeline will eventually take care of themselves.

  • by nuonguy (264254) <.nuonguy. .at. .yahoo.com.> on Wednesday December 25, 2013 @05:17PM (#45783543)

    Who is the slow learner here, him or the legal system that failed at prosecuting him? He recognised a (criminal) opportunity before everyone else and has the wits to stay out of jail. Crime doesn't pay unless you do it well.

  • by marka63 (1237718) <marka@isc.org> on Wednesday December 25, 2013 @08:14PM (#45784547)

    If you thing SPF as made a difference to the amount of spam being sent I have a bridge to sell you.

    SPF was never about preventing spam. It has only ever been about preventing your email address being used as the from address in spam. It reduces the amount of blowback to your account and nothing else. The only reason SPF appears to be a effective anti-spam tool is that there is that the number of sites filtering using SPF hasn't risen to the level where the spammers need to stop using SPF protected address as the from addresses.

    Another thing SPF does is cause spammers to use hijacked credentials to send spam through legitimate sources.

    This shouldn't be seen as a reason to stop using SPF records. But if you think SPF will stop spam you are deluding yourself.

How much net work could a network work, if a network could net work?

Working...