AOL, MS & Yahoo Unite On Anti-Spam Initiative 316
dilaudid writes "FT.com has an article about AOL, Yahoo and MS putting aside their differences to combat spam. An AOL VP is quoted as saying "Our customers are telling us it is the number one problem with the internet." Their intended response is "narrowly-defined federal legislation aimed at so-called "king-pin" spammers" who send the bulk of the mails. "
A valid use for a buttload of cash? (Score:5, Interesting)
I am concerned that when all of this is said and done, only users of a Microsoft OS will not receive spam.
Re:A valid use for a buttload of cash? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A valid use for a buttload of cash? (Score:5, Insightful)
That makes sense, actually. What if the "solution" would be to only accept and forward messages with a valid DRM certification?
95% Coverage (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't that give us like 95% coverage? Sounds good to me
Re:A valid use for a buttload of cash? (Score:2, Insightful)
Or you would have to at least register your details with them.
I've often wondered why spam hasn't been dealt with along the lines of virus protection, i.e you pay a subscription to keep your records of spam locations up to date and thus able to block those offenders. Though I must admit, setting simple rules on the mail client has kept me largely free of the sifting through spam, and the potent
IIS, Spammers, and a handy little shell script. (Score:5, Interesting)
Finally! The Evil Empire has thought of something truly helpful to do with the 1 trillion dollars of cash.
Well, enough spammers seem to use IIS... Maybe they could "extend" the HTTP protocol to detect whether the referring website URL was received in a spam, and use it to disable the server... :)
Until then, my little script works well enough:
#!/bin/bashI _WILL_DO_THE_SAME_TO_YOUR_WEBLOGS
COUNT=0
while [ $COUNT -lt 2000 ]; do
lynx -dump $1?YOU_FILL_MY_MAILBOX_WITH_UNSOLICITED_CRAP_AND_
let COUNT=COUNT+1
echo $COUNT
done
Note that my website includes a warning about what happens to unsolicited e-mail. Apparently, the "Order Viagra, Diet Pills & more with NO PRESCRIPTION!" people wanted to stress-test their IIS server at Beijing Telecom.
284
The page cannot be displayed
There are too many people accessing the Web site at this time.
* Click the [1]Refresh button, or try again later.
* Open the home page, and then look for links to the information you want.
HTTP 403.9 - Access Forbidden: Too many users are connected
Internet Information Services
* Background:
This error can occur if the Web server is busy and cannot process your request due to heavy traffic.
* More information:
[2]Microsoft Support
References
1. javascript:location.reload()
2. http://www.microsoft.com/ContentRedirec
Poor spammer. But then again, I'm only fulfilling his wish...
Re:What if the spammer is getting paid per hit? (Score:3, Insightful)
At a penny a hit, your script nets the spammer an extra $20.
I guess that's true, and for a second, I thought it was a big flaw in my
they-asked-me-to-fill-their-weblogs-with-crap-b y -sending-e-mail-to-my-domain plan. But either way, it doesn't matter. Why?
Let's say this fly-by-night pharmacy (www.pharmacyfun.biz) is paying the spammer to produce exposure. If they're paying the spammer per hit, then they're spending the $20 to advertise to /dev/null on one of my boxes.
Fine, it might make more money for
You know your a scumbag when... (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdotters support AOL and MS when they attempt to stomp on you.
Re:You know your a scumbag when... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You know your a scumbag when... (Score:2)
But no, first we don't help them, then we call it spam, and now we unite against them! What is the world coming to?
Let's get ready to fumble? (Score:4, Funny)
I may have to start a betting pool.. and maybe get some popcorn as the hilarity ensues on, "Internet Deathmatch".
Re:Let's get ready to fumble? (Score:3, Funny)
Let's hope (Score:4, Interesting)
2 months ago less than 50% of my incoming e-mail was spam. Now it's running 65%.
Re:Let's hope (Score:2)
You just don't have enough friends. (Score:5, Funny)
Don't blame the spammers. Leave the house more.
Re:Let's hope (Score:3, Funny)
Bernie Shifman will send you his resume! Bernie Shifman will not be stopped! Bernie Shifman conquer Shaq-Fu! Bernie Shifman has uber-leet Flash design [shifmanconsulting.com] skillz! You work for Bernie Shifman! Send your resume [mailto] to Bernie Shifman!
Re:huh? nobody gets that much spam (Score:3, Informative)
That seems hard to believe. If you have domain names registered with your email address, you'll get spam. If your email has been around more than a few years, you'll get spam.
My email has been active since 1994 and while I don't plaster it everywhere I don't make huge efforts to hide it since I feel that being able to send me emai
In Other News... (Score:5, Funny)
First a free internet and now this, do they realise that they're ment to be the bad guys?
Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
I feel better already.
Federal Law won't stop this. (Score:3, Insightful)
I feel better already.
More to the point, what are American laws going to do to stop the spam I get?
Most of the spam is sent from open relays in shitholes like Brazil and Japan. Most of it points to websites on hosting providers in China and Korea.
You're not gonna tell me that some ulgy fuck like Alan Ralsky isn't gonna go and simply register a company offshore?
His spamming organization can work offshore and hire another company to fulfill the orders in the USA. That way, th
Real "wrath of God" type stuff (Score:5, Funny)
[b]mass hysteria![/b]
WTF. MS et al joining together to resist fundamental changes to the internet, and AOL moving to stop SPAM.
What's next? The fall of communism?
Re:Real "wrath of God" type stuff (Score:2)
Erm, that already happened [mit.edu].
Re:Real "wrath of God" type stuff (Score:2)
No, RLS and Linus go to work for SCO...
yeah yeah we don't want to buy more hardware (Score:3, Insightful)
They are carriers & they could care less about spam other than the hardware demands the sheer volume of this stuff means for their investment cycle. If they could magically reduce their workload by 80% w/o losing one dime in revenue I swear they would turn out their children to do it.
Re:yeah yeah we don't want to buy more hardware (Score:5, Insightful)
RTFA. The main reason they're pushing for this is because their customers are telling them that the spam is decreasing the value of their offerings.
AOL CENSORS THEIR EMAIL (Score:5, Interesting)
It never occurred to them that perhaps the customer should decide what is and is not acceptable.
This form of spam-filtering is very dangerous - when someone else decides for you who can and can not send you email.
Re:AOL CENSORS THEIR EMAIL (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm guessing option 2 would see by far the most use. Hell, if the filter worked 90% of the time I'd use it at my ISP...
Re:AOL CENSORS THEIR EMAIL (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:AOL CENSORS THEIR EMAIL (Score:3, Informative)
One word: Spamnix [spamnix.com].
Out of the 25 or so spams I get every time I check my email, maybe one actually lands in my inbox.
Re:AOL CENSORS THEIR EMAIL (Score:2)
Re:AOL CENSORS THEIR EMAIL (Score:2)
How, exactly? You criticize AOL for implementing systems to identify spam, and then you make an assertion that this is "dangerous".
Precisely how is this dangerous?
Re:AOL CENSORS THEIR EMAIL (Score:3, Informative)
HERE [slashdot.org]
Re:AOL CENSORS THEIR EMAIL (Score:3, Interesting)
If AOL decides not to allow mail with the word "potatoe" in it, that's their problem and I'll let Mr. Quayle send all his mail encrypted to get past their stupidity if he wants to, or just get another ISP.
The real problem is that AOL has decided that a large chunk of the valid mail sources in the world are, in fact, NOT valid mail providers! This means that vast numbers of AOL users are now not on the Internet-pr
Blocking vs. tagging (Score:3, Insightful)
There are two fundamentally different things that ISPs can do with
Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
The groups said they were particularly looking for narrowly-defined federal legislation aimed at so-called "king-pin" spammers whom they believe are responsible for the largest volume and most pernicious of unwanted e-mails.
They're looking to legislate the "spam kings" to death, not block mail from them for their collective subscribers. Funny, however, that they continute to ignore "black hole" lists that are actually quite good at deleting/preventing spam.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
I dont want providers arbitrarily deciding that some IP block can no longer send me e-mail.
Because then you wind up with some person/comittee with an agenda deciding that I can no longer get e-mail from, say, a group with an opposing point of view. If Bill Gates controlled the black hole list, maybe kernel.org shows up on it. If RMS controlled it, hotmail would show up on it.
It's a bad system, wide open to abuse. Punish the criminals, don't hinder the internet.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Like you, I am glad there isn't a single source of record for "e-mail blocking", especially one that is controlled by a company or government shill.
However, it'll be a cold day in hell when we're able to completely block what everyone thinks is spam...
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Then maybe you should move to an ISP that doesn't tolerate kiddie porn on their servers.
Most of the serious blocklists (SBL, Spamcop, SPEWS) are quick to delist an IP once the spamming problem goes away. And some (SPEWS for example) don't even list an IP block until the ISP has been
My favorite show (Score:5, Funny)
With your powers combined, I am Captain Corporate!
(chorus)
Captain Corporate,
he's our hero,
gonna take spam down to zero!
More spam articles? (Score:2, Funny)
I'm frightened (Score:4, Funny)
A short time later, after gaining the support of all the geeks in the world, we'll see "MS decides to take over and enslave the world", and there will no longer be any organised geek resistance to prevent this.
Exceptions (Score:4, Interesting)
Wait, lemme guess- that "narrowly-defined" definition of "spammer" will not include internet service providers advertising their services, nor companies the ISPs have paid to spam their subscribers?
My grandmother got porno spam within 2-3 days of her MSN "internet appliance" getting set up, and it had a very unusual account name(with numbers in it, too)- no dictionary atttack hit this one. She hadn't even figured out how to surf the web yet. Wanna guess who sold out her email address? First 3 guesses don't count.
Re:Exceptions (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you know her email address was even sold? Ever have a Hotmail address? It doesn't come because it's sold, the spam comes because of the brute force spam attacks on it.
Why buy a list of email addresses when you can get millions of hits at *@msn.com?
Re:Exceptions (Score:3, Informative)
I know it's hard, but try and read through my entire post, and note this particular point I specifically mentioned:
"it had a very unusual account name(with numbers in it, too)- no dictionary atttack hit this one"
Next time, read the entire comment, okay? Shame on those of you who moderated him up; he didn't even bother to read th
Re:Exceptions (Score:2, Informative)
It doesnt have to be a common address to be brute forced.
Spammers leave their bots running all day and all night, and they dont care if they get 7 billion bounced emails for 500,000 delivered. Especially when it comes to the big dog domains like msn.com, aol.com hotmail.com or comcast.net.
Re:Exceptions (Score:2)
"it had a very unusual account name(with numbers in it, too)- no dictionary atttack hit this one""
Take your own advice and read MY entire post.
"Ever have a Hotmail address? It doesn't come because it's sold, the spam comes because of the brute force spam attacks on it."
Further supported by this comment:
"Why buy a list of email addresses when you can get millions of hits at *@msn.com? "
Re:Exceptions (Score:2)
Re:Exceptions (Score:4, Funny)
Since it couldn't possibly be those lovely people at MSN, I can only assume that it was you.
I guess this is proof that there are people out there who would sell their own granny's email address... :)
Re:Exceptions (Score:5, Insightful)
My primary email account has disappeared under an avalanche of bounces and blocks from some asshole spammer forging my domain name in everything he sends out. I'm job hunting now, and refuse to install some new untested filters that are liable to throw out something important. So I need to wade through hundreds of returned ads for streaming gay porn.
If these companies can put a stop to the total scumbags, they can include a provision that their ads can be sent over the NSA's secret high-speed network. I'll still be grateful to them.
My grandmother got porno spam within 2-3 days of her MSN "internet appliance" getting set up, and it had a very unusual account name(with numbers in it, too)- no dictionary atttack hit this one.
Maybe, but my suspicion is that you underestimate the magnitude of dictionary attacks on common domains like that. Given millions of idiots, all MSN addresses are shallow.
Re:Exceptions (Score:2)
1) no-one cares about spam that comes from a valid email address - you can always reply and say 'no thanks', or block it and guarantee its blocked.
2) your grandmother got hit with a bruite force attack - if you read the recent
Re:Exceptions (Score:2)
It also won't limit political parties from sending mass unsolicited emails. For obvious reasons, you'll never get legislation that in any way inconveniences political parties. Look how difficult it is to get campaign finance reform through; they will NEVER get campaign anti-spam bills through.
Great... (Score:5, Funny)
04/28/2003 sdogin@microsoft.com Join the fight against spam!
04/28/2003 asgasg@microsoft.com Join the fight against spam!
04/28/2003 dfjdfdsagsdg@aol.com Join the fight against spam!
etc, etc, etc.
Spam wouldn't exist without morons (Score:4, Insightful)
If the number one problem with the Internet is spam, then the number two problem is all the idiots who buy products from spammers and keep them in business.
Spam will never stop. Just like junk snail-mail will never stop. The tiny percentage of below-freezing IQ's out there who fall for unsolicited "offers" are ruining it for everyone else.
Re:Spam wouldn't exist without morons (Score:2)
below-freezing IQ's
And that is below-freezing in degrees Celsius, of course. Ha!
JP
AOL, MS & Yahoo, again? (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps if these three got together and ran some decent television commercials which cut to the core of spam it would greatly reduce, i.e.
Would you buy questionable medications from someone who solicits you from a forged email address?
Would you consider giving your personal financial information to someone incapable of proper grammar or even good spelling?
Would you visit a site alleged to contain pr0n/child pr0n knowing your visit may be tracked?
(some percentage, like 100%) of spam is unsolicited, commits an act of trespassing, is made by people who have nothing of actual value to offer and is intent on defrauding you. Visit www.cauce.org for more information.
Sadly, these companies will trumpet how spam costs billions of dollars, but a few million on public information awareness advertising is beyond them. Hell, I don't even see anti-spam public service annoucements on MSNBC or Yahoo. Smells like more ado about nothing.
Re:AOL, MS & Yahoo, again? (Score:3, Informative)
Its ALL unsolicited, thats why its called SPAM!.
Re:AOL, MS & Yahoo, again? (Score:2)
This will be fun. The very first time this happens you can count on spammer advocacy appearing, probably right here on Slashdot. Someone will take the spammers point of view, wrap it up in government oppression garb, blame Ashcroft and the entire Internet "community" will be bitterly divided.
We'll have blogs, advocacy sites and t-shirts! "Free Such-and-S
AOL anti-spam crusaders? (Score:5, Funny)
. . Oh.
Re:AOL anti-spam crusaders? (Score:5, Funny)
At least I know the names of all the single women in my neighborhood now.
Re:AOL anti-spam crusaders? (Score:3)
Dude! This is your chance. Get those MSN CDROMs together, and personally deliver them to all these women. Single women love a guy who shows up with an MSN CDROM! Just ring the doorbell and tell them about MSN's "advanced features", including "patented junk e-mail protection", "e-mail virus protection services", parental controls, "rich e-mail", and online bill pay. They'll melt like butter all over you.
"I got fewer busy signals for
I believe that AOL, MS and Yahoo ... (Score:5, Funny)
The Number 1 Problem?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, if they think this is the number one problem with the Internet they really don't understand privacy issues and how it affects them.
you already know AOL's plan (Score:5, Funny)
Re:you already know AOL's plan (Score:2)
Dumb and Dumber (Score:4, Interesting)
Spam can be solved very, very simply. Everyone with a brain cell knows this. People need to stfu and do it right. I'll outline the basic steps of one way to do it, there's many others equally simple and valid. Actually, in this outline I'll solve not only the problem of spam, but also the problem of adult content on the web and filtering it for children. Needless to say you can combine the two to stop porn spam too. Here goes:
1) Set a technical standard for senders to classify emails in the header fields. Say, an X-header like "X-Mail-Classification: ". Give it three legal values: "UCE", "SCE", and "Personal". UCE is Spam, SCE is when you told a company explicitly that they could spam you (you really did visit their site and give them your address for future announcements or whatever), and Personal is anything else.
2) Set a similar technical standard for rating the adultness of websites. Make an HTTP header field, call it "Content-Rating", with a range of values similar to modern cable TV ratings (first a rating like PG-13, R, etc... followed by WHY (R - Violence, X - Strong Sexual Content, etc..).
3) Pass a bill in congress making it a legal requirement that all sites and emails MUST contain these headers, unless they fall in the "best" category (by that I mean, emails which actually fall in the Personal category are not required by law to state this, and websites which would have a G rating are not requried to state this). Failure to have a rating results in fines, having an obviously false rating (porn site rated PG, etc) results in even bigger fines - repeat offenses land you in a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
4) Obviously once the headers are well-defined, and prevalent because of the legal requirement, software vendors need to mod email clients and web browsers to recognize these headers, which is extremely trivial. The user can then block bad sites and trash bad emails automatically or do whatever else they wish. If something makes it through the system (unwanted porn, unwanted UCE), you've got a clear case that they failed to properly label it with headers, which violates the new law above and lands them with criminal fines.
Re:Dumb and Dumber (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you lie about the headers? (Score:5, Insightful)
And you're right back where you started from.
No, the solution is to inform [sho.com] people that
a) Your body parts aren't going to get bigger (bellies excluded)
b) You really don't want to trust your finances -- even credit bailouts -- to people who'd SPAM you
c) There are no dignitaries in Nigeria that have millions of dollars they need to launder into the US, and if they did, you'd be arrested
d) There's no need to pay for porn. Go out into the big blue room and you could find someone real. Besides, there's enough free internet porn [google.com], just look.
You get SPAM because it works. People buy this crap. If they didn't, the spammers would stop.
Re:Dumb and Dumber (Score:3, Informative)
The spammers will continue to either highjack foreign servers (foreign to them at least
I'm right back to trying to figure out what is and is not really personal flagged as personal. Nothing will change.
LAWS won't fix the problem -- how do I reach out and touch somebody in China that spammed me from the US? It's just easier to block them all.
I've gone from trying to play nice to
No, It Won't (Score:3, Informative)
Big-time spammers get their money up front from the spamvertiser, not piecemeal from individual suckers. If nobody falls for whichever scam is being promoted, that's just too bad for the spamvertiser -- the spammer has the money, and rigorously follows the First Law of Acqu
This is what happens... (Score:3, Funny)
We cheer and boo both at the same time... social schizophrenia ensues..
OUCH! I HATE AND LOVE MYSELF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE CORPORATIONS!
Someone pull the ripcord!
What really needs to be done (Score:5, Insightful)
* Go after those that hire spammers too. If I contract someone to perform a service and I know their methods are not legal then I should be held liable too.
* Don't depend on laws to fix everything. Fix the system!
Doubting Yahoo's commitment to this ??? (Score:5, Insightful)
I do realize everyone's SPAM is at insane levels and SPAM has gone up in the last 3 quarters. That said, I have very intelligently and precisely made my 15 free filters and none of them work on Yahoo mail. Middle of last year, I decided to chunk down the money for the premium email account. I used up the free 35 extra filters pretty quick.
It is my opinion that Yahoo allows junk mail, in fact, dumps it heavily on it's customers so that they will buy a premium service.
Re:Doubting Yahoo's commitment to this ??? (Score:2)
Re:Doubting Yahoo's commitment to this ??? (Score:2)
*shrug*
Re:Doubting Yahoo's commitment to this ??? (Score:2)
Ok, I got one spam, once.
All of my other accounts are spammed like so many red-headed stepchildren.
Is Spam Really a problem (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:your request From: acv235fv@hotmail.com SPAM!
refinance lowest rates From: bob33010@aol.com SPAM!
If everyone just ignores them and doesn't buy anything from the spammers, then it will dry up. Another favorite is to find their real e-mail address, usually from their form, or their link, and e-mail them 2.5MB from
The (Obvious) Problem With Spam (Score:2, Interesting)
As the c
This is not for the customer. (Score:3, Interesting)
Has anyone here REALLY considered not using e-mail ever again because of spam? Does anyone here REALLY believe spam is going to put an end to electronic communication?
Forbidding certain companies from sending out mass e-mails could mean your mailing list is next. I am just as annoyed by spam as the next person (well, maybe not, since I seem to get a lot less than some people here complain about), but charging for or forbidding bulk e-mails will put a cramp in more peoples' style than just the spammers.
Kingpins not enough. Guarded email, etc. (Score:4, Informative)
If you're interested in countering spam, please check these out:
Drug War Parallel (Score:5, Insightful)
But isn't it interesting that they (meaning AOL et al) are going after the big offenders and not, say, THEMSELVES? After all, they are analagous to the street-level pushers of the spam. The big spammers ("kingpins") are the ones who create the spam and are the nexus for it's origin. The product is then filtered down until it reaches the local ISP of the client/user and finally handed to the target -- the customer.
You might object and say, "the difference between drugs and spam at this level is quite sharp because drug users want the drug. Spam receiptients do not." Well SOMEONE is buying. Spammers don't spam because they think their literature amounts to avant garde exercises in promotional haiku. They spam because someone pays them to. And someone pays them to because someone is buying. In other words, every nickel they spend on spam comes back to them dressed up as a dime. It's as simple as that. The only real difference between the two analogies when you consider it is that spam is less visible because of the inherant privacy and legality of spam. That's all. You still have a product, you still have a buyer and you still have a larger community that must deal with the fallout of that activity.
However, this is the point at which the analogy breaks.
The community normally goes after the street-level dealers and the users. Of course the dealers have little to lose because they're poor to begin with and there will always be someone to deal. Always. And users/buyers are always going to use/buy. So go after the source, right? This makes sense, right?
So why are over half (55%) of all federal prisoners drug offenders [bop.gov]?
This would be like Microsoft and AOL suing themselves half to death and prosecuting the recipients of the email when they purchased wares sold by spam. Never mind the fact that buying after seeing a spam isn't illegal. That's not the point. The point is that even if it were, it is an obviously flawed and ineffective model. It just doesn't work.
Re:Drug War Parallel (Score:2)
Spammers (the successful ones, anyway) get their money from the sleaze artists who pay them to vomit out advertisements for their
Re:Drug War Parallel (Score:3, Insightful)
That caveat is precisely my point. Even if no spam recipients actually bought any spamvertised product, there will always be somebody who thinks that his spammed pitch will work.
Technical Pressure (Score:5, Insightful)
Although perhaps exceeding the requirements of the RFCs, they might also consider refusing mail if the HELO/EHLO does not resolve back to the connecting IP.
In addition, they could publish via DNS info records or ?? the IPs of all their outbound mail servers (no MX won't work - that's only for inbound mail). It would be great to be able to bounce all mail "from" someone at yahoo/hotmail/aol/etc. unless the connection came from a mailserver associated with that email address (sure, for some people the mail may have been legitimately relayed before arriving at their site but that has never been the case for my servers).
Use RBL/SpamCop/Spews to force AUTH BASE SMTP (Score:4, Insightful)
There is spam because the system is insecure. Force AUTH based SMTP and use SSL.
Use RBL's, SpamCop and Spews to blacklist people who don't want to grow up and be secure! Big ISP's should do this, Cable & DSL providers should do this.
With wireless tech i can login to anyways network and spam away as long as i'm behind an IP address allowed by there servers.
Its LONG overdue! Use our preventative technologies to enforce some decisions for the better of the network, not the perogatives of a select few!!!!!
Narrow legislation? (Score:3, Interesting)
The best way to fight spam is to enforce the existing criminal laws. Spam is almost universally fraudulent at best, if not outright criminal behavior.
It's also the easit to pursue, since the money trail *will* lead to people responsible for the spam being sent and its the easiest trail to follow. I don't believe that SPAM is necessarily trackable, especially if it involves hijacked or cracked mail systems.
Is there such an animal? (Score:2)
Seriously though, do we really need a law for this written by the geniuses over at AOL-TW?
The pro-spam coalition (Score:3, Informative)
What really scares them is an anti-spam law with teeth.
Kingpin? (Score:3, Funny)
BS (Score:4, Interesting)
ulterior motives are at work...
if AOL was serious about stopping spam, they'd catch it on the way out. I had 4 this morning that ANY decent filter would have caught (it's at work, so I am stuck with a krap filter).
if aol/msn seek legislation, better read the fine print, cause the real meat isn't in the title/stated intent.
oh, I see.... (Score:3, Funny)
So whether you're running Win98, Win2000, or WinXP, you'll be certain to meet the technical standards! Oh, and open source need not apply: you're all terrorists and communists anyway, and obviously a part of the problem.
Max
Bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
Nope. RTFA. It clearly says the plan includes suing the hell out of the spammers. If they can't turn a profit, everyone gets less spam.
Re:Of Course... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope. The topic icons have disappeared for me as well, and the 'No icons' option in my preferences is unchecked. This wreaks of yet more 'live' SLASH development.
Re:Of Course... (Score:2)
Re:How about looking closer to home... (Score:2)
The only problem with this is if you wish to obscure your email address to prevent harvesting by replacing the @ sign with hex, mac.com servers reject your email since it can't be authenticated. Oh well, 1/2 of the problem solved.
Re:How about looking closer to home... (Score:2)
Re:How about looking closer to home... (Score:3, Informative)
Shortly after you learn how to view the full headers of your email and see that those are blatantly obvious forgeries. Most of those emails never came from Yahoo/Aol/Msn's networks.
This is probably why they're working together (Score:2)
I wonder how much time AOL/MSN/Yahoo spend dealing with people who don't realize that the headers are forged and send every fake spam to abuse@isp.com? If I spent that much time dealing with faked headers and everything else, I'd do something about the problem also.
If every spammer faked the headers from sun.com/oracle.com/app
Re:How about looking closer to home... (Score:5, Informative)
The From: header is self-reported by the sender. Self-reported = easy to fake. Almost every single piece of spam I've seen in the past 6 months has had a spoofed address in this field.
The Received: header, OTOH, is recorded by the receiving SMTP server, and contains the self-reported name and non-self-reported IP address of the sending server. While the self-reported name is also easy to spoof, the IP address is not.
According to the headers I've been analyzing since October or so, the bulk of the spam that hits my servers is actually from someplace other than Yahoo, AOL, or MSN.
YMMV, of course, but that is what I've seen.
Re:"DRM" (Score:2)