Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Spam

Virginia Anti-Spam Law; FTC Forum on Spam 186

Posted by michael from the hopefully-we-can-stop-hearing-about-spam-for-a-while dept.
kiwimate writes "According to this press release, the state of Virginia has just passed a statute making 'the worst, most egregious and fraudulent kinds of spam' legally actionable. And yes, this includes header forging. The article reads like a big AOL PR piece in some places -- the VA governor led the signing at the AOL HQ in Dulles. The story also states this comes on the eve of the first-ever FTC forum on spam in Washington D.C." The FTC also made the insightful discovery that most spam is fraudulent in some fashion.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Virginia Anti-Spam Law; FTC Forum on Spam More

Virginia Anti-Spam Law; FTC Forum on Spam

Comments Filter:

  • Going after header forgers? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Corvaith ( 538529 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @06:55PM (#5838653) Homepage
    This is the one that's always gotten me. It's obviously one of the worst possible things in spam. But how do you then track down who happens to be sending it and punish them for it?
    • And better yet, do I have to live in Va. to benefit, or does my inconvenient mail just need to make a hop there?
      • Most likely, either you or the sender would need to live in Virginia. Generally speaking, the rule is (and this is very approximate, as IANAL) that the person sued must have done *something* that they could reasonably have expected to have placed them under the laws of a given state. Marketing to someone in that state would qualify, connecting directly to a mailserver in that state would probably qualify, bouncing off a mailserver in that state would probably *not* qualify.
        • IANAL either, but I would imagine that spoofing the domain of a company (like AOL) registered in that state, or one with all of its mail servers (the recipient of bounces and thus victim of the aftermath) would likely qualify too.
    • Go after the site advertised in the spam. The spammer (or who paid the spammer) has to get replies about their ads somehow.
      • Yeah, it seems obvious that an ad for a website was sent on behalf of the website, or with their consent, but if you could go after someone for an ad posted for their product, without actually proving that they sent the ad, then I (or anyone) could post fake ads that would get businesses in trouble.

        Yeah, it sucks because a business can send out fake or misleading ads, and then claim they didn't do it ("I swear, I don't know why someone would send out ads for me"), but if it were the other way around, any b
      • Yes, but you also get independent "affiliate programs", I was spammed for inkjetshopper.com, a wholesale inkjet cart. site.. they have a legit business and awesome prices (say, $5/cart in groups of 5... sure beats $30 each from office depot). I did not however use a direct link, and avoided his illegal refurral.

        To get to the point, small websites, beginners... people trying to make money online, and utterly failing could also be responsible even now.

    • Re:Going after header forgers? (Score:4, Funny)

      by k-0s ( 237787 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @07:30PM (#5838897) Homepage
      This is the one that's always gotten me. It's obviously one of the worst possible things in spam. But how do you then track down who happens to be sending it and punish them for it?


      I don't know how you track them down personally but when you find out let me know and I can take care of the punishment part.
      • This is the one that's always gotten me. It's obviously one of the worst possible things in spam. But how do you then track down who happens to be sending it and punish them for it?

        I don't know how you track them down personally but when you find out let me know and I can take care of the punishment part.

        Spamcop [spamcop.net] can certainly help :)
    • You don't need to find who is behind the scene. Here are the steps to punish spammers without knowing them:

      1. Write a small program that every user can run at home, on the seti model. Let's call it spammerSucker.
      2. Identify an email as spam (this part is easy)
      3. Find the website of the spammer (The email is generally full of http links)
      4. Add the URL in the centralized DB of spammerSucker.
      5. In minutes, millons of DSL/Cable users running spammerSucker are downloading every byte out of their server, initiat
      • The danger is in step 3 because it's hard to know what URL is the spammers' they often hide the url by by various means and include other sites in the email.

        • Re:At last, a fair use for slashdotting websites (Score:5, Insightful)

          by amuro98 ( 461673 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @09:08PM (#5839510)
          There's also "joe jobs" where a spammer intentionally advertises a website of an enemy or competitor in an attempt to get the site yanked by the ISP.

          I've also gotten "newsletter spam" where there are dozens of websites with different owners, none of whom are related to the spammer, nor given permission to have their website advertised in such a manner. I got one for a bunch of casinos - none of whom were thrilled at the attention. Since my complaint was CC'd to all of them, they had a handy mailing list to band together and take the spammer to court for defamation of character in a class action suit...
        • The danger is in step 3 because it's hard to know what URL is the spammers' they often hide the url by by various means and include other sites in the email.

          If your browser can get to the URL, it obviously isn't hidden enough.
      • This is definitly a good solution... but how do you protect it from abuse? I mean, if one skript kiddie wants to spam his enemy's server, what's to stop him from forging a fake spam that he sends to himself and then posts to the centralized DB as a "spammer"?

      • 5. In minutes, millons of DSL/Cable users running spammerSucker are downloading every byte out of their server, initiating millions of sockets per second.

        Step 5 is probably easier than you would think. I worked briefly with a company that spammed intentially (don't flame until you read paragraph 2!). Their servers were located in Tunisa and China, and I've got more bandwidth than those servers did (I'm on DSL). I was told they had to move them off shore due to the anti-spam people. (You ARE making

    • "But how do you then track down who happens to be sending it and punish them for it?"

      Perhaps you don't. Perhaps you want for someone to run an open proxy honeypot and hope he catches the same spam and identifies the source ip.

      Alternately, you could be the someone running the open proxy honeypot that someone else is waiting for. Maybe you are in Brazil running an open proxy honeypot and find out that a particular spammer is using Brazilian (and possibly other) open proxies to send out his spam. Looks

  • Sadlly of shore spam would not be stopped (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fozzy(pro) ( 267441 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @06:56PM (#5838659)
    This may be good for Spam originating in the US, for the residents of VA, however Spamers from other countries could still fill our inboxes.
    • And when was the last time you saw spam coming from a US server?

      Most I've seen come from China!

      • > And when was the last time you saw spam coming from a US server?

        About the same time I started blanket-blocking 12.0.0.0/8 and 24.0.0.0/8 as well as all the other netblocks belonging to residential broadband users.

        You're the CEO of rr.com? attbi.com? cogentco? telus.net? pacbell.net? swbell.net? ameritech.net? Until you start blocking port 25 by default - only enabling it when someone calls your support line and says "Yeah, I wanna run an MTA", I don't want to hear anything from any of '

        • Why the fuck are you you cable/DSL-providing assclowns so unwilling to control your customers?

          I find the idea that the providers are supposed to be in a controlling role offensive. I am the customer, I am paying for the service, I should be resonably free to do what I want with the connection. The attitude you present will lead us down the road of everything being blocked or filtered except for what our provider approves for us.

          I agree that something needs to be done about spam, and that the providers

        • Hey, some of us run legit servers on our DSL lines.

          That's why we pay for DSL.

          Arbitrarily blocking the ports leads to bad things.

          Wouldn't it be better to have ISPs scan for open relays, and port filter SMTP for IP addresses failing the test?

          Sure, there will be wrinkles for the DHCP crowd (e.g., Cable Modems), but most of them forbid the running of servers in their User Agreements. Oh, it would be good if they enforced those consistently, too. Those old MediaOne agreements that ban "the running of servers

  • Sic Semper Tyrannis (Score:4, Funny)

    by sulli ( 195030 ) * on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @06:56PM (#5838664) Journal
    Will they drive a spear through the heart of the spammer? [state.va.us] I would move back to Virginia just to be part of that.
  • So apparently we can use our 'common sense' to figure out what's 'the worst, most egregious and fraudulent kinds of spam'. I'm not sure I feel safe in a system where such a statute can be passed. The definition is too open for interpretation. Today it's porn spam with forged headers, tomorrow it's legitimate advertising getting outlawed.

    If the state representatives don't have the balls to outlaw all spam outright, perhaps the residents of Virginia could grow some balls and vote these jokers out of office.
    • There is no legitimate advertising through email.
    • I don't mind legitimate advertising. Spam that clearly shows itself as such isn't a problem; I can just delete it without a second thought, like tossing out the fliers in my mailbox.

      It's the bullshit that these scumbags pull that bothers me. Header forging is fraud. Making invalid claims is fraud. Sending spam and making it look like legitimate mail is fraud. Spammers should be prosecuted under existing anti-fraud laws.

      (And by the way, at least the VA representatives have the balls to address the pro

    • Re:Either it's all illegal or the law is wrong (Score:5, Informative)

      by ad0gg ( 594412 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @07:22PM (#5838843)
      From the article

      To qualify for the felony provisions the sender must:

      consciously (with intent) alter either e-mail header or other routing information (a technical characteristics common to most unsolicited bulk mail, but not present in normal e-mail messages); and

      attempt to send either 10,000 messages within a 24/hr period or 100,000 in a 30-day period OR the sender must generate $1,000 in revenue from a specific transmission, or $50,000 from total transmissions.

      Its a clear definition. Alter the headers and send over 10,000 emails in day and its illegal.

    • Re:Either it's all illegal or the law is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

      by smashr ( 307484 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @07:23PM (#5838849)
      I am a voting resident of Virginia. I am quite happy with this law. You know, the people on /. spend so much of their time whining about how we must stop the spammers, and someone finnally comes along and passes a law that will help curb the worst types of spam, and suddenly it is a horrible trangretion.

      You cannot have both sides of this argument. Any restriction the government places on things like this can be interpreted by some people as too broad. Either you take your government in small doses and shy away from government regulation, or you allow the government to regulate. You cannot be wishy-washy and take whichever side of the argument you feel like supporting that day.

      Spam with forged headers is bad. I dont pretend to think that this will elimnate the mass amount of email i recieve, but I can only hope.

      -Dan
    • "legitimate advertising" wont be using forged headers. Try reading the article and look at the criteria for actually being a felony.

      A legitimate business should stop bothering you if you tell them to.

      A legitimate business with legitimate advertising should be oneou have done business with that you haved opted into.

      Spam is none of these things.

    • So apparently we can use our 'common sense' to figure out what's 'the worst, most egregious and fraudulent kinds of spam'. I'm not sure I feel safe in a system where such a statute can be passed. The definition is too open for interpretation.

      Today it's porn spam with forged headers, tomorrow it's legitimate advertising getting outlawed. If the state representatives don't have the balls to outlaw all spam outright, perhaps the residents of Virginia could grow some balls and vote these jokers out of offic

      • Please dont construe what I am about to say next as supporting spammers, cause I hate 'em just like everyone else, but you cannot just ban spam outright... not without tossing the 1st Amendment in the process.

        Nonsense. It is well-settled law that time-place-and-manner restrictions on speech are acceptable when they are directed to some compelling interest (in this case, protecting the private property rights of the spam targets) and when they leave alternate avenues open to the speaker's message (in thi

  • The convicted spammers should be forced to use AOL the rest of their lives! :)
    • In 1998 I got kicked off of AOL for sending 200 emails in 5 minutes. Sure, I was a stupid kid and I deserved it. That's the only positive thing I have to say about AOL. Generally they act first and ask questions later when it comes to their TOS.

  • And in further news... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 0WaitState ( 231806 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @06:59PM (#5838690)
    And in further news, a minimum of two-thirds of all types of intrusive advertising contain false claims--telephone cold-calls, loud tv commercials, the crap that hides the funnies in the sunday newspaper, the daily pound of paper cluttering your mailbox, you name it. The more intrusive the advertising, the more fraudulent the content.
    • Tell me, do you see ads for "Doctor Approved!" penis enlargment in any of the media listed? Those media all advertise for identifiable, accountable corporate entities; scammers can't afford a huge publication of fliers in the Daily Rag, nor could they avoid a law-enforcement backlash after their scam is exposed.

      It's due to the anonymous nature of electronic communication that these types are able to sell anything. Regulatory agencies would come down, BLAMMO, on a telemarketer phoning you and screaming por

      • It's due to the anonymous nature of electronic communication that these types are able to sell anything. Regulatory agencies would come down, BLAMMO, on a telemarketer phoning you and screaming pornographic lines at you. Spammers don't ask questions when taking jobs. Newspaper editors and TV commercial producers do.

        You're talking about the tone of the advertising, not its fraudulent content. As for the fraud, regulatory agencies might get into the act after 5-10 years of abuse, by which time thousands
        • Don't forget unclaimable rebates, "shipping and handling" fees, "free" things when you contract to pay a monthly fee for several years, items with "free" extras that were never sold without those extras, "national rate" numbers (in the UK) that usually cost more than national rate, "excluding delivery charge, road tax and number plates", "at participating locations", etc. At least the UK has a rule that interest rates must be stated with all charges included (or both with and without).

  • Is their sample size really valid? (Score:5, Funny)

    by psychosis ( 2579 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @07:03PM (#5838718)
    The FTC studied a random sample of 1,000 unsolicited e-mails taken from a pool of more than 11 million pieces of spam it has collected.

    OK, so were they planning to sample more than 3 typical e-mail accounts worth of daily spam?

  • Oh boy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @07:09PM (#5838753)
    I hope there can be a war on spam that is as effective as the war on drugs or the war on terrorism or the war on poverty.

  • Write to the Spam King (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @07:11PM (#5838762)
    Alan M. Ralsky
    6747 Minnow Pond Drive
    West Bloomfield, MI 48322

  • If you think this will help – you’re right. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by insecuritiez ( 606865 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @07:11PM (#5838764)
    This wont put even a tiny dent in spam. In Virginia or any where else. What it will do is set a precedent. This is one huge step in the right direction. Now you can write your local representative with "If Virginia can do it, why can't State X?" Lets take this spam victory and run with it.

  • I live in Virginia! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tuzy2k ( 523973 ) <spam@tuz w o r ld.com> on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @07:20PM (#5838827) Homepage
    I hate to say it, but if AOL can throw their weight around to rid me of spam then I'll stop bitching every time I get an AOL cd in the mail :)

    I wonder though- is there a place that we could report spam to the virginia prosecutors? Perhaps our state attorney general could setup a spam email and state residents could forward their spam there for the prosecutors to go after :)

    • 1. Beat the crap out of the disc and package. Stab it, crush it, bend it, shatter it, etc.
      2. Either send the original package, or the package in a sandwich bag back by writing "Unsolicited, return to sender!" on it and placing it back in the mailbox.

      I haven't recieved a CD in several months, down from once a week or so.
      • or bulk rate, I forget which. That means the post office does not return them to the sender. If something is undeliverable or refused the post office just throws it in the trash.

        AOL isn't informed that it was thrown away.

  • This isn't new (Score:5, Informative)

    by RJ11 ( 17321 ) <serge@guanotronic.com> on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @07:21PM (#5838841) Homepage
    Virginia has had an anti-spam law since 1997, which is part of the Virginia Computer Crimes Act (VA Code 18.2-152). It makes spam with forged headers illegal: http://www.spamlaws.com/state/va.html [spamlaws.com]

    AOL, Verizon, and other large ISPs based in VA have been suing under this law for years (though they almost always go to federal court, pursuant to U.S.C. 85 1332). I have burninated a few spammers in small claims court under this law as well (I was actually in court today suing etracks.com). The law allows the recipient to seek civil relief for the lesser of $10/message or $25,000/day. For ISPs, it's the greater of the two.
    • Verizon is one of the SOURCES of spam. They don't act on complaints, and willing let scumbags and thieves operate on their network.

      If the 1997 bill didn't stop them, I don't see what this new one will do, unless AOL decides to sue Verizon. Hah...I'd fly out to sit in the audience for that trial...

      • Re:This isn't new (Score:3, Insightful)

        by nolife ( 233813 )
        Verizon is one of the SOURCES of spam.

        Meaning Verizon itself or a customer using Verizon services for the initial internet connectivity? Very big difference. Claiming the provider responsible for the actions of specific users is a very sharp double edge sword that has far more reaching effects then spam.

        They don't act on complaints, and willing let scumbags and thieves operate on their network.

        Your perception of what they do behind the scenes may not be exactly what is going on. If that is the comm
    • While I've never taken this to court, I've quoted the law back to certain spammers with results.

      I don't get much spam, so when I do I try to nip it in the bud. I received a pr0n site spam a while back. I took a look at the html source and scribbled down the domains. I found about four domains registered by the same fellow, plus two companies. I send a nice letter informing the spammer (both reply-to and the admin contct his domains) that if I didn't receive a reply from his reply-to address that I would

  • AOL HQ (Score:2, Funny)

    by Red Warrior ( 637634 )
    they signed the anti-spam law at the AOL HQ?
    Isn't that one of the seven signs, or something?
    Or

  • Just for Ralsky (Score:3, Interesting)

    by amber_lux ( 630446 ) <{amber_lux} {at} {emailaccount.com}> on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @07:25PM (#5838861) Homepage Journal

    B: A person is guilty of a Class 6 felony if he commits a violation of subsection A and:
    1. The volume of UBE transmitted exceeded 10,000 attempted recipients in any 24-hour period, 100,000 attempted recipients in any 30-day time period, or one million attempted recipients in any one-year time period;

    I think Ralsky would get that many bounces in an hour, if he did not forge headers, and hijack mail servers.

    Penalty is only $10.00 per email or $25K, whichever is less.

    Not enough financial damage to spammers, but it is a start. If the statutory damages were higher, it might have a legitimate claim to being the toughest in the country.

    Wind under Thy Wings

    Amber

    • But that's just criminal penalties, when he's in prison, he a stationary target for civil suits.
      any evidence in the criminal trail would also be available for use. if there is enough for a criminal conviction, a civil suit should be a cake-walk.

  • fraudulant?!?!?! (Score:5, Funny)

    by edrugtrader ( 442064 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @07:49PM (#5839010) Homepage
    spam is in no way fraud. i make $50,000 a day posting to slashdot from home. you can too, email me back at ahk235hk2@yahoo.com. if that doesn't work, try my work email at 235hlj235hl2@hotmail.com.
  • Imagine what will happen when spamming is illegal in all but a few states....

    I can see a federal anti-spam law on the rise, and for spammers it will not be pretty....

    (-1 Redundant.)
  • The article reads like a big AOL PR piece in some places -- the VA governor led the signing at the AOL HQ in Dulles.

    Hm, thats what I want, my Legislators delivering law directly from the BoardRoom. The same people who send you "buy this penis pump" emails will, next month, be sitting next to this Virginian Politician at a $5000-a-plate fundraiser... and the viscious cycle begins again.

  • Most Spam is Fraudulent? (Score:3, Funny)

    by X_Bones ( 93097 ) <danorz13&yahoo,com> on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @08:01PM (#5839082) Homepage Journal
    Next thing you know, someone's gonna say the Pope wears a funny hat.

  • FTC recruits rocket scientists (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SuperBanana ( 662181 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @08:03PM (#5839095)
    The FTC also made the insightful discovery that most spam is fraudulent in some fashion.

    Duuuh. That's because nobody selling something legitimate wants the negative side effects of spam- mainly, the disgust it causes. Hell hath no fury like a consumer who's just been spammed for a product; they'll probably, even out of spite, go for your competition, if they just so happen to be in the market for your item. Remember those stupid little remote control cars? They learned the hard way that spam didn't work; retailers reported a backlash from the spam, people coming up to them and chewing out -the store employees- for the spam other resellers were sending.

    • Don't encourage them (Score:3, Interesting)

      by billd ( 11997 )
      If nobody ever replied to spam, there'd be no point to it, so maybe it would dry up eventually. People who react to spam are providing the feedback that encourages the spammers to spam on.
    • "Duuuh. That's because nobody selling something legitimate wants the negative side effects of spam- mainly, the disgust it causes."

      Speaking of disgust that spam causes, you should respond to my comment here [slashdot.org] in the other article about spam. I normally wouldn't hunt somebody down over it, but you gave me a chewing I didn't deserve.
  • This is a situation where the law is countering an effect of a bad protocal. SMTP is the badness here, not so much the people that abuse it (but *they* are bad). It should be the responsibility of the people on the internet to simply ignore the spam since they are willinging participating in email to start with. I realize that SPAM is bad, but it is only possible because SMTP sucks donkie's. Same as war driving, it is very possible to drive around and find a free AP to exploite just as it is easy to scan th
  • Somebody has been sending out spam as if it were from Idocs.com [idocs.com]. I'm very angry about it. I save all the bounces. I'm going to get to work on figuring out who to contact in the VA government and see if I can get someone interested in pursuing this.

    -Miko

  • Wow, shocks this Virginian (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mao che minh ( 611166 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @08:32PM (#5839274) Journal
    As a lifelong Virginian, I never saw this coming. This state's government is usually so in bed with the money hounds, nothing (and I mean nothing) gets done "legistlative-wise" until some big company lobbies for it.

    I forgot that AOL has a huge datacenter up North from here. Hmm.....

    • Ironically, I once wrote to the Delegate who introduced this bill (my local representative), asking her to support a state-wide "do not call" list for phone-spam.

      She wrote back, basically saying the bill was bad for business.

      Maybe I should send campaign contributions to AOL, since they seem to get the job done.

  • Tasty! (Score:2, Funny)

    by pcwhalen ( 230935 )
    Mmmm. Virginia Spam! The best kind. They cure it different there, Smithfield I think.

    "And after a while, you can work on points for style.
    Like the club tie, and the firm handshake,
    A certain look in the eye and an easy smile." Rodger Waters

  • Virginia and the Law (Score:5, Interesting)

    by The Ape With No Name ( 213531 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @08:44PM (#5839359) Homepage
    As a gennilman raised in Vehjenya, I can tell you this, they do not fuck around. Illegal gun: 5 years. Use a firearm in commission of a felony: 5 years on top of 20 years for whatever you did. Simple pot possession: 12 months. Radar detector: fat fine, car searched and mucho points on the license. It goes on and on. The old joke is that Virginia has a law against everything and two laws against most things, and never get busted in a state where the flag has a woman standing on a man's chest wielding a spear.


    If any spammers are reading this, let me tell you about the Virginia correctional system. If you are lucky you will go to the big house. If they put you on the farm you are fucked. Most penal farms in Va grow their own food and cut their own fire wood, etc. You will come out tan and fit, my friend. I taught literacy in Wise County at the facility there. No slack for misdemeanors and light felonies. They also operate road gangs (no chains. Work is time off from your sentence with good behavior) with the Boss standing over you with a 12-gauge full of rocksalt if you decide to make like Cool Hand Luke. Also, the Virginia State Police are ruthlessly efficient and will get you. This was the best state to implement anti-spam legislation if we want spammers to hurt.


    PS. It is "The Commonwealth of Virginia" not the "State of Virginia." I didn't get my hands whacked with a ruler by Mrs. Underwood to have y'all malign my beloved home with the lowly name of "state."

    • I live in Virginia, and call it home.

      Don't forget, it is the South, so you better believe there will be a huge guy in your cell named "Bubba" who wants to make you "squeal like a pig".
    • Radar detector: fat fine, car searched and mucho points on the license.

      False. No points, and they can't even compel you to relinquish it. And it has never been fully tested in court, either.
      • Right. I live in Tennessee now. Have a radar detector. I forgot to put it away in Bristol. Bam. $118 on top of the speeding ticket and he took it as evidence. Said I could get it back after my trial if I showed up. They are illegal and confiscatable in VA. Don't fool yourself with the "never fully tested" line. Care to be the one to fully test it?

  • "send", not "send or cause to send". (Score:3, Informative)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @10:12PM (#5839876) Homepage
    This bill, unlike California law, only penalizes sending spam, not causing it to be sent. So it doesn't let you go after firms that hire spammers. California law lets you go after people who hire spammers.

    The FTC has recently gone even further. They take the position that a beneficiary of the spam is responsible for it unless they took steps to stop it. This covers spamming by "affiliates".

    The FTC's position is consistent with decades of false advertising law. The FTC has often prosecuted companies that let their "dealers" lie for them. The FTC has the authority to crack down on spam, and it looks like they're starting to do so.

  • I'm sure people are going to respond saying "find a technical, not a political, solution." The fact is, this problem exists now, and a technical solution isn't forthcoming. Sometimes, a political solution is appropriate to legislate interactive conduct. A silly, but still applicable analogue: shoplifting might be considered a 'technical problem' with running a store - but we still pass laws against it! At the same time, stores employ technical means against shoplifters. Similarly, SPAM is probably best addr

  • Where do I turn myself in? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ajs ( 35943 ) <{ajs} {at} {ajs.com}> on Tuesday April 29, 2003 @11:39PM (#5840250) Homepage Journal
    From the article, here are the criteria:
    consciously (with intent) alter either e-mail header or other routing information (a technical characteristics common to most unsolicited bulk mail, but not present in normal e-mail messages); and
    Have you ever seen such hogwash?! What, pray are, "a technical characteristics"?! Since when are headers and routing information common to "unsolicited bulk mail", but not "normal e-mail messages"?!
    attempt to send either 10,000 messages within a 24/hr period or 100,000 in a 30-day period OR the sender must generate $1,000 in revenue from a specific transmission, or $50,000 from total transmissions.
    Ok, so where do I trun myself in? I've certainly generated $1,000 from a specific transmission (we in the spammer game call it an "invoice") and I (just like tens of thousands of other evil spammers like me) forge headers and alter routing information. For example, I have mailing list managers that alter headers and routing information and then take that single modified message and send it to DOZENS of users! I also send mail from my laptop at home and claim to be me at work and visa versa!

    Before tonight I didn't know I was a spammer, but if Virginia says I'm a spammer, I must be one! Is there a reward for turning my evil spammer ass in?

    I'd add a smily, but this is just creepy!
    • I also have "forged headers" as you claim, but changing your "Reply-To" header is not a forged header. It adds a "Reply-To" header to the other headers present in an e-mail. You're not claiming to be from an IP address that you're not using. You're not using non-existant domain names in headers. You *want* to be contacted by your clients in your business dealings.

      Have you ever actually read e-mail headers? I'm not sure if you're trolling or just plain ignorant of what e-mail headers are. Open your Ou
      • Adding a reply-to is one thing. My mailer claims that I'm ajs@.com, even though it's sending mail from a system, and through an MTA totally un-related to my company. It does this by setting the From address both in the headers and in the Envelope (e.g. the SMTP "MAIL From:" command).

        That's called forgery, and it's a perfectly legitimate form of forgery use by most popular mailers these days.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Here's something to think about: How come you never see a headline like `Psychic Wins Lottery.'" -- Comedian Jay Leno

Close