Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Spam

NYT on Spam Cops 215

Posted by CmdrTaco from the game-is-on dept.
yet another coward writes "The New York Times reports on new measures against spam. (Sperm sample required, sorry ladies) Microsoft has increased efforts to track and prosecute spammers. Hotmail receives 2 billion (2 * 10^9) spam messages per day. In a twist of weirdness, the Direct Marketing Association is funding investigators who cooperate with the FBI on spam investigations. Spamhaus also gets a mention."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NYT on Spam Cops More

NYT on Spam Cops

Comments Filter:

  • Only 2 billion spams a day? (Score:5, Funny)

    by messiuh ( 206505 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:29AM (#9303701)
    Jeeze, my Optonline single account gets about that per day.

    Come to think of it, I suppose if I got that many free samples of Viagra, I could start my own Pharmaceuticual company.

    • 1000's of spams (Score:2, Interesting)

      by KaiBeezy ( 618237 )
      OK, this is tangential to the topic, but... My spam has increased by almost 10x just in the last couple of weeks. Now, well over 1000 a day! Many are the same message over and over and over. The only thing I did recently was upgrade to the new version of SpamKiller... coincidence? Anyone else seeing this?

  • Too easy to send (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RucasRiot ( 773111 ) <webmaster@q-cat.com> on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:29AM (#9303711) Homepage Journal
    The problem with spam is that it's too easy to send. With even a 56k modem you can fire off MANY messages in a matter of minutes. I think a good solution would be on the ISP end of things, and have them throttle connections to port 25 on remote machines. There will always be plenty of open relays, as idiots who just want to allow access to their mail server as quickly as possible will usually just allow relaying from everybody. The spam "hash sites" are great, but the problem with them is not enough people actively submit spam for them to be as effective as possible (not to mention there are numerous, non-centralized ones)

    Hopefully, some day people will realize bulk mail isn't effective, but for now, since it is so cheap and easy to send, nothing is going to stop it anytime soon.

    • Re:Too easy to send (Score:4, Interesting)

      by mikael ( 484 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:56AM (#9304075)
      I think a good solution would be on the ISP end of things, and have them throttle connections to port 25 on remote machines.

      The problem is, you have to consider the worst case scenario where the spammer is an offshore ISP renting T1 lines from a major backbone provider. Only when you have a solution for this example, can you block spam. Otherwise, the spammers will just adapt to whatever loopholes are available.

    • Re:Too easy to send (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Not_Wiggins ( 686627 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @11:15AM (#9304326) Journal
      Well, actually you don't need a fast connection.

      As a matter of fact, it would be undesirable for these slime to leave that much of a trail back to themselves (ie, the IP they've connected to the internet would be included in mail they originated from themselves).

      No, instead a lot of them look for open relay mailservers. For the uninitiated, an open relay is a mail server that will accept mail from anybody to anybody.

      Then the spammer sends *one* mail to the relay with 10,000 bcc addresses. The victim relay then has the task of sending out the 10,000 messages while the spammer looks for another open relay to send more spam through.

      This is where it is even scarier that spammers are "hooking up" with virus writers. Sure, it used to be the virus would just send copies of itself to your friends and family. But, now they're getting sophisticated enough to become open relays for spamming or even *hosting the website* that the spam points to (!).

      You're right... it *is* far to easy, but much easier than you even thought. >8(

    • Obligatory (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jonfelder ( 669529 )
      Your post advocates a

      (*) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante ( ) lack of an

      approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

      ( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
      (*) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
      ( ) No one will be able to find the guy o

  • where have we heard this before? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by berkleyidiot ( 762486 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:30AM (#9303716) Homepage
    In a twist of weirdness, the Direct Marketing Association is funding investigators who cooperate with the FBI on spam investigations.

    sounds like phillip morris funding anti-smoking campaigns.

    • Re:where have we heard this before? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jfengel ( 409917 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @11:07AM (#9304205) Homepage Journal
      It actually makes some sense. The DMA wants to be able to send you "legitimate" spam, marketing legal products. They hate being drowned out by Nigerian scam artists and people peddling bogus pills and illegal stock tips, not to mention porn ads sent to four year olds. They think it gives spam a bad name.

      Phillip Morris, on the other hand, is unwillingly paying off the results of a lawsuit.

      Personally, I'm perfectly happy to make spam safe, legal, and filterable. You send it, my server rejects it without my ever seeing it. The easier it is to filter, the better it is for me. If it comes from the DMA, and clearly so marked, I'm happy with that, and if the thieves' guild wants to punish unlicensed thieves, I'm thrilled.
      • In addition to what jfengel said, the DMA is doing what it can to look like a legitimate organization. SPAM has seriously hurt the reputation of the DMA and all its members. If they don't start working to look like a legitimate organization, they're not going to have a chance lobbying congress. It's probably too little too late but they're definitely seeing the writing on the wall.

        And a small correction, I don't believe the DMA actually sends SPAM. It's their members that send it...

        • Re:where have we heard this before? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by jfengel ( 409917 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @12:45PM (#9305407) Homepage Journal
          You are correct. The DMA does not itself send spam; it's an organization of people who do.

          The DMA itself actually predates spam; it started in 1917. Its members are also responsible for junk mail and telemarketing. Any sort of "direct marketing", as opposed to broadcast advertising.

          In other words, their purpose is to be irritating, but not so irritating that they get what they do made illegal.

          They've always been considered a legitimate, if somewhat unpleasant, business.

    • Re:where have we heard this before? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by gcaseye6677 ( 694805 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @11:11AM (#9304268)
      In this case, it is being done for different reasons. Some DMA members operate semi-legit email lists. They may annoy people, but at least they are not using some of the most harmful tactics, such as relaying messages through other people's servers and forging headers. Anti spam efforts make it very difficult to operate any kind of mailing lists, as we have discussed on Slashdot before. If the DMA can cut down on the worst offenders and eliminate some of the 'competing spam', their members' marketing campaigns will be a lot more effective. I'm not saying I am a fan of the DMA or anything, but I can understand why it makes sense for them to do this.
    • The DMA might see spam as competition and a detriment to already bad public relations. People complain about the junk mail and telemarketing calls. Spam is the spreading of those techniques into a new medium. Spammers probably do not belong to the DMA, though, and if spam is successful, it might steal DMA members' business. The cost structure of traditional direct marketing must be quite different from spamming. Telephone marketing requires employees. Direct mailing has a cost per piece of mail. Spamming s

  • Three cheers... (Score:4, Funny)

    by ideatrack ( 702667 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:31AM (#9303725)
    for Mr McBride.

    Now that's a /. first.
    • So, is he Darlas evil twin or something?
    • Dont you think it's pretty strange that, out of the "more than 100 people around the world" employed by Microsoft to trace spammers, this article focuses on the one investigator with a name that resonates quite loudly in the IT community?

      In any case, yes, three cheers for Sterling (can we call him "Sterl"?) McBride

      • Re:Three cheers... (Score:5, Funny)

        by betelgeuse-4 ( 745816 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:57AM (#9304083) Homepage Journal
        'can we call him "Sterl"?'
        No, because somebody might get confused and start thinking that SCO is run by Mr. Darling McBride. Which would be a very bad thing.
        • Melchett: God, it's a spankingly beautiful world and tonight's my night. I know what I'll say to her. 'Darling...'
          Darling: Yes sir?
          Melchett: What?
          Darling: Um, I don't know, sir.
          Melchett: Well don't butt in! (exhales) 'I want to make you happy, darling'.
          Darling: Well, that's very kind of you sir.
          Melchett: Will you kindly stop interrupting? If you don't listen, how can you tell me what you think? (continues) 'I want to make you happy, darling. I want to build a nest for your ten tiny toes. I
        • If Darl goes to prison, maybe he will be somebody's darling.

  • Becoming A Real Crime (Score:5, Interesting)

    by blueZhift ( 652272 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:31AM (#9303734) Homepage Journal
    Stories like this seem to indicate that spam is becoming more of a "real, get sent to jail" kind of crime with cops and detectives tracking done spammers. Naturally one hopes that violent criminals won't be neglected by this new focus on spammers. Nevertheless, the prospect of real jail time and big fines may deter some from entering the spam market.

    Of course, one effect of rounding up the stupid ones will be leaving behind to true spam geniuses. Going after those guys and girls should be real entertaining. Heck, maybe there's a reality based tv show in there somewhere. So you heard it from me first! Anyone got Fox's phone number?

    • It seems more like something that is easily able to be dramatized. People are familiar with the annoyances of spam and the media recognizes this.

      It is nothing but a good story. I am sure that they are making this out to be a lot more sensational than it really is.

      Laws were passed to make spam illegal. They have been passed to make plenty of other things illegal. Law enforcement has to track down people all the time to prosecute them for breaking the law.

      I don't see how this is any more important.

    • RICO, RICO, RICO (Score:5, Interesting)

      by swb ( 14022 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:47AM (#9303959)
      It's time for some RICO investigations! Let's throw some people from ISPs and banks into the mix as well -- spamming and scamming really is a racket, and these people need to do some hard jail time. Dragging in people from the "legitimate" business world will go a long way towards making spam hard to do and keep spammers from the support systems they need to do business.

      The banking angle is especially important! If these scammers can't do credit cards, they will be hard pressed to run their businesses. While I'm sure there are people dumb enough to send cash, most people can't be bothered to do that much work.

      • Re:RICO, RICO, RICO (Score:3, Interesting)

        by emtboy9 ( 99534 )
        That's a brilliant idea. And while we are at it, lets charge the people who work for minimum wage in the factories that make said pills as well. After all, if you can charge the isp (who most likely is in no way responsible for the spam other than having end users with compromized boxen) why not them as well.

        Lets take it one step further and prosecute mom and pop and grandma with the compromised boxen for facilitating spam! Oh, and lets prosecute IRCops because IRC is an evil spammer and hacker wonderl

        • Re:RICO, RICO, RICO (Score:3, Insightful)

          by swb ( 14022 )
          After all, if you can charge the isp (who most likely is in no way responsible for the spam other than having end users with compromized boxen) why not them as well.

          The crux of my comment (which I apparently didn't make clear) was that spammers get a lot of cooperation from the legitimate business world. If the legitimate business world that supplies them is aware of what the spammer is doing, they *are* part of the conspiracy and a member of an ad-hoc criminal enterprise.

          "I didn't know" is only goo
    • Bad boys, Bad boys . . . Allright here we go

      knock, knock, SEARCH WARRANT!

      Boom...cop breaks down the door

      cop: Freeze Spammer Scum!

      spammer: I didn't do anything

      cop: allright put your hands on the Monitor and spread 'em

      Spammer: looking jittery

      Cop: Put down the the mouse, put it down NOW!

      Spammer: makes a run for it

      Cops: run him down in half a second (you don't think spammers are fit do you?

      later in interrogation - Detective: Arey you gonna talk Spammer?

      Spammer: Never

      Detective: Bring in the logic pr

    • I'll help the FBI out with catching them. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by khasim ( 1285 ) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @11:35AM (#9304535)
      #1. Buy the pills (in the article, they're already saying that they do that) and pay with a CHECK.

      #2. Find the bank that accepted the check.

      #3. Call the local field office and have them meet with the bank manager.

      #4. Local agent picks up the name, address and social security number of the person who has the account that deposited that check.

      #5. Profit?
      • #5. Find out that the name and address doesn't exist as the account has been made with false ID.

        Your #5 only works if they are stupid. oh wait...
      • #4. Local agent picks up the name, address and social security number of the person who has the account that deposited that check.

        It's more likely that, as a previous poster mentioned, you'll find that information forged. But even more likely than that, you'll find a bank in the same countries that allow Internet gambling sites to operate -- meaning the bank will be outside of United States jurisdiction.

        Perhaps a few spammers will be found using the method you describe, but the money is big enough that the

      • #6. In retribution, identity stolen by Russian mafia spammers who you just gave your name, address, email, signature, account number, banking institution, and check appearance/layout.

        #7. Credit cards created in your name and used destroying credit rating

        #8. Bank account emptied when they use information on your check along with the routing number at your bank to open a paypal account

        #9. House burned down
      • Most of the spam I receive doesnt include a snail-mail address, just a credit-card form...

        So where would you send a cheque?

        If there was an actual mailing address, I'm sure a lot more spammers would get caught and/or beat up.
      • #1. Buy the pills (in the article, they're already saying that they do that) and pay with a CHECK.

        #2. Find the bank that accepted the check.

        #3. Call the local field office

        , leave a voicemail, spammer cashes your check, you get herbal pills full of lawn clippings, never hear from either again. You're an in-duh-vidual. You really think the FBI gives a shit?

  • Re: (Sperm sample required, sorry ladies) (Score:5, Funny)

    by karlandtanya ( 601084 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:32AM (#9303752)
    What makes you a lady can't acquire sperm samples on demand and in larger quantity than any given gentleman can produce on his own?

  • He used to be a *what?* (Score:5, Funny)

    by The Ultimate Fartkno ( 756456 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:32AM (#9303756)

    > When he hunted down escaped prisoners for the United States Marshals Service

    "I didn't send that spam!"

    "I don't care!"

    Damned one-armed spammers...

  • Sperm Sample??? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Sinus0idal ( 546109 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:33AM (#9303758)
    Oh dear, worse than spam is hundreds of thousands of Slashdotter sperm samples winging their way to NYT...

  • confuzzled (Score:5, Funny)

    by bestguruever ( 666273 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:34AM (#9303780)
    oh man, Mr. McBride and Microsoft in the same story and its actually a good thing? My head hurts.
    • Two lawsuit happy McBrides makes an interesting lesson in morality. You can use your talents for good, or for evil. And, you can still do good even if you work for an evil overlord.

  • ..they are actually purchasing pills.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by burgburgburg ( 574866 ) <splisken06&email,com> on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:35AM (#9303784)
    Increasingly they are actually purchasing pills and responding to offers of get-rich-quick schemes to track down the spammers.

    Of course, they'd probably stop investigating if any of the products actually worked. Then they'd stay at home in their mansions and satisfy their wives and their wives friends and neighbor ladies and ...I'm walking away from the computer now.

  • So... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Throat constant ( 727976 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:35AM (#9303785)

    If they ever find out who 'Napoleon Talley' is, could someone please tell him that I'm willing to take him out for dinner (before he gets prosecuted)? His spam e-mails changed my life!

  • we need a department of anti-spam for the us government. They would bring in real experts on the internet and work with ISPs to track down and take care of spammers. And by experts I mean real nerds. /.ers, mail experts and not run by M$ or Yahoo or any of the other big namers.

    • Re:we need... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by cheekyboy ( 598084 )
      Just tell em that the spams with random characters are really secret encrypted messages by terrorists ,and that will quickly get the spammers a 12 year holiday at Camp Xray.

  • Futureproofing Spamhaus (Score:5, Informative)

    by alanxyzzy ( 666696 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:37AM (#9303811)
    In related news, Spamhaus has announced [spamhaus.org] a Funding model based on charging large corporate networks a yearly fee for our Data Feed rsync/ixfr service.

    The public DNSBL service will remain free.

  • Place to start (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hords ( 619030 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:41AM (#9303866)
    Microsoft has increased efforts to track and prosecute spammers.

    Stop letting people use your redirect service to spam. You too Yahoo, you hear me?!!!

    http://g.msn.com/0US!s5.31472_315529/HP.1001?http: //POS_SPAM.com

    http://rd.yahoo.com/barrage/card/ovum/*http:/POS_S PAM2.com

    How about we start prosecuting services that allow people to spam through them, huh?
  • When submitting a story from the NYT, the summary with the wittiest "registration required" comment will be the one that is selected. Who cares if you can offer up any extra insight. Keep this in mind next time you find something /. worthy. Comedy rules, dammit.

  • NYT Jokes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:43AM (#9303908)
    Sperm sample required, sorry ladies

    This is kind of off topic, but does anyone else feel that the New York Times, "registration required," jokes are getting a little out of hand. I mean, the first time someone said, "soul sucking registration," it was pretty funny, but now it's just getting lame. I think it's gone the way of the step 1 step 2 step 3 profit jokes.

    No offence intended to whoever posted the article. I'm sure they were just joking around, but a lot of people read /., and that looks a bit unprofessional for the front page.

  • Illegal and tricky Spam (Score:5, Interesting)

    by phorm ( 591458 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:53AM (#9304033) Journal
    I got an interesting one yesterday. It came into my hotmail account, which is set to "only allow users from my contact list." The address, which wasn't in my list, was listed as from microsoft.com. It was a bit hard to read due to heavy obfuscation (to avoid filters), but it seemed to be advertising underage pr0nography.

    I'm assuming that it didn't come from an actual MS address... but one must wonder since if hotmail is simply allowing any email claiming to be from @microsoft.com that's pretty dumb. Not sure how to view headers in hotmail either, and I don't really feel like forwarding something so file to my home account to check them.

    MS's online contact thing isn't working either, so I can't ask them. Anyone have any ideas?

    (normally I wouldn't bother, but the fact that this spam is particularly vile and somehow manages to bypass a whitelist makes it a special case for stomping)

  • Maybe I'm missing something here, but... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by the_rajah ( 749499 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:55AM (#9304053) Homepage
    why can't the companies that are paying for spam be targetted for prosecution/persecution? They can't easily hide since they have to engage in commerce, AKA money changing hands, to do their business, thus requiring valid contact information. Just follow the money.

    "Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
    • As a side effect of SPAM prosecution. The cops bust a spammer, and then tack on additonal charges because the shit he's selling is bogus. In exchange for a reduced sentence, they get the spammer to roll on the company he's spamming for.

      However I suspect in many cases the spammer is spamming for themselves. These people have shown they have almost no morals, fraud wouldn't supprise me in the slightest.

  • "MaxxLength" (Score:3, Funny)

    by jasoncart ( 573937 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:59AM (#9304103) Homepage
    Microsoft then hired outside investigators to stake out and follow whoever picked up the mail. It turned out to be Jason Cazes, who Mr. McBride said sells "MaxxLength" penis enlargement pills
    I wonder how they spotted him!

  • The Abrams Report 5/31 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @11:00AM (#9304111)
    I don't normally watch the Abrams Report on MSNBC but last night as I was surfing through I caught the tail end of the program where he reads viewers emails. His comments last night were regarding the flood of emails he was receiving from suddenly wealthy people in Africa, all needing his help to retrieve their new found wealth. The complete transcript of the show can be found here [msn.com]. Scroll to the end to read his comments.

    Obviously these are the wonderful Nigerian, and now apparently Democratic Republic of Congo, email scams but his point was that these were frauds and to never respond to these emails.

    My question has always been not why aren't we going after these people (well, not these people because they are in a foreign country) because the products they are pushing are fake but rather why aren't we going after them for using a false identity?

    Just a thought.

  • The DMA hates spammers (true) (Score:5, Informative)

    by Random BedHead Ed ( 602081 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @11:05AM (#9304187) Homepage Journal
    In a twist of weirdness, the Direct Marketing Association is funding investigators who cooperate with the FBI on spam investigations.

    Not much of a twist at all, despite many of the above comments. Just grok this: the DMA hates spammers. No, really. I know someone who works for a company that's part of the DMA, and spam is her biggest headache. While we all hate commercial e-mail in general, the DMA is made up of companies who want to play by the rules. True, they want to have a hand in writing the rules as well, but the rules are pretty good ones. No faking your source IP addresses or From: fields. Always have an Unsubscribe feature that actually works. And so forth.

    Spammers make the DMA's life a living hell. It's impossible to have a conversation with most people about legitimate commercial e-mail because illegitmate spam is such a pain (I just deleted 20 spams, vs. three real messages in my Lycos mail). With an annoyance like spam, no one even wants to hear the DMA's side of the story. So the DMA's members get blocked from sending e-mail by many sysadmins (like me).

    If all commercial mail conformed to the rules that the DMA advocates, no one would complain to ISPs about commercial mail because the power to prevent it would be in the hands of the recipient. Just click Unsubscribe and you're free and clear. Until spammers go away, that's impossible because no one trusts Unsubscribe links. It shouldn't surprise us that the DMA will do anything they can to prevent spam.

    • Re:The DMA hates spammers (true) (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Steve B ( 42864 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @11:11AM (#9304264)
      While we all hate commercial e-mail in general, the DMA is made up of companies who want to play by the rules. True, they want to have a hand in writing the rules as well, but the rules are pretty good ones.

      Not unless and until they accept that the rules must be based on opt-in, not opt-out. Unfortunately, it has become clear that the only way there is any chance of getting them to accept this is to make it clear that an unsolicited opt-out advertisement from a "legitimate" business will be considered equivalent to the sleaziest "p3n!s pill" spewing.

    • Just click Unsubscribe and you're free and clear.

      I don't even want "legitimate" spam. Why should I have to unsubscribe from dozens or hundreds or thousands of marketing mailing lists that I never suscribed to in the first place? The DMA should be advocating opt-in rather than opt-out. I have no sympathy for their headaches.

      I recently had a long conversation with the guy who runs the spamvertisements for a certain motel chain that sounds like FlooperBait. He said "We process thousands of unsubscribe r

    • Re:The DMA hates spammers (true) (Score:4, Insightful)

      by StormyMonday ( 163372 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @12:01PM (#9304814) Homepage
      The problem with "legitimate" spam is that there would be 'way too much of it. Let's say that there are 100,000 "legitimate" spam senders, each of whom sends me one spam per year. That's almost 300/day -- worse than I have now. 100,000 is very definately a lowball estimate, and one per year is simply silly.

      The "unsubscribe" business is a con -- you will have to unsubscribe to every company and mailing list provider that might want you to buy something. I'll also bet that most of them will be set up as obfuscated web pages that will actually subscribe you to extra lists (unsubscribe to List A, be automatically subscribed to Lists B through Z unless you find the Magic Button).

      Let's face it. There is *no* *such* *thing* as "legitamate" spam -- if we want to keep e-mail as a useful means of communication.
    • "the DMA is made up of companies who want to play by the rules. True, they want to have a hand in writing the rules as well, but the rules are pretty good ones. No faking your source IP addresses or From: fields. Always have an Unsubscribe feature that actually works."

      The problem is that email addresses eventually leak out from the more legit DMA members to shadier and shadier spammers, whether it's through "affiliates", bankruptcy sales, or corrupt employees. See the story of Nadine [honet.com] for an excellent examp
    • So long as the marketing target bears the costs not only should the lists be opt-in but they should be excluded from any sales. Selling a physical mailing address is one thing, selling a cellphone #, an SMS ID or an email address is something entirely different. Along a tangential line, anybody who responds to a lead generated by unsolicited email should be required to honor any promises made in that email. This means that I should be able to get a $200,000 loan at $350/month - the spam specifically said
    • Just grok this: the DMA hates spammers. No, really. I know someone who works for a company that's part of the DMA, and spam is her biggest headache. While we all hate commercial e-mail in general, the DMA is made up of companies who want to play by the rules. True, they want to have a hand in writing the rules as well, but the rules are pretty good ones.

      The DMA wrote the Can-Spam law, which doesn't outlaw spam. That is because they want to send spam. They sued the US government over the recently enacte

  • Compare that to this pathetic article by the BBC [bbc.co.uk]. This supposed "hi-tech James Bond" who calls himself "Mr X" believes that by popping into #warez on IRC where he can download pirate software gives him: "The result for me is just to have a clean internet. There is so much filth out there and it is satisfying when it goes down," he said.. Er pirate copies of Nero are "filth"? Oh, and he is actually just a day-jobber for the Business Software Alliance. Sterling McBride is busy busting crooks that are making e

  • Follow the money, find the spammer (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Chatmag ( 646500 ) <editor@chatmag.com> on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @11:12AM (#9304292) Homepage Journal
    At some point, the spam wants money, mainly by a credit card. Why not set up a credit card account only to be used to purchase whatever product the spam is touting, and follow the trail to the account collecting the funds.
    Its done for drug busts, so I know the Feds have cash, at least, they have a lot of mine. Put it to use!

  • Microsoft wants to dominate spam market (Score:4, Interesting)

    by funkytwig ( 780501 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @11:30AM (#9304496)
    Of course Microsoft wants to fight spam, or more accuratly spam where the spam 'provider' has not paid Microsoft. Now MS has set up there white list system where spammers (sorry, advertisers) pay MS for sending spam (sorry, adverts) they want anyone who sends unsolicited email to pay them - that way they dominate the spam (cant get the hang of this, sorry advertising) market. By fighting non-MS spam they are simply increasing there dominence on the world in yet another way.
  • "Microsoft's two-year-old "digital integrity" unit - which also fights online fraud, identity theft and spyware" - Fight spyware??? Yeah, right so if this unit is actually doing work to combat the potentially much more serious problem of spyware why have we seen 0 in the way of releases? Something more than a mision statement that is.
    bah... firefox and/or spybot s&d

  • That puts my 600+ a day into perspective i guess...

  • Scary thought (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rick Zeman ( 15628 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @12:21PM (#9305024)
    By filing lawsuits known as "John Doe" suits, in which the identity of the defendant is not known, Internet providers are able to subpoena records from banks and others to determine the identity of spammers.

    Someone tell me how this is different than what the RIAA has been trying to do with the ISPs getting John Doe warrants to find out who's behind the P2P violations?

    • Re:Scary thought (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Steve B ( 42864 )
      Someone tell me how this is different than what the RIAA has been trying to do with the ISPs getting John Doe warrants to find out who's behind the P2P violations?

      Because the RIAA fights tooth and nail against being held to antiquated legal concepts like having to prove that somebody is a violator before having his anonymity breached, as opposed to the illegal spam investigators who are willing to work within the rule of law set forth by the Constitution.

  • Project Slam-Spam?
    Does this mean project CAN-SPAM has be canned by the slam spam plan?

    i cant beleive its been panned. man. i was its biggest fan.

  • The problem with spam (Score:2, Interesting)

    by SkeptAck ( 558548 )
    Well, I guess there are a lot of problems with spam. My problem with spam is that I receive hundreds of spams a day. Our company uses a very nice spam filter, and almost of these things get labeled as spam, buried in an attachment, and a local filter moves them to a 'probably spam' folder. But since there are hundreds of them per day, and in order to read them I have to open the attached email, I don't read any of them, I just delete them. So, my email used to be 100%, but the spam's gotten so bad that
    • The problem lies not with email, but in the people who are misusing it. (i.e spammers). It's as though you were using stolen stamps to pay for a mass conventional mail solicitaion. It really just comes down to economics.

      Email does cost money to send. I pay my ISP $40 / month so I can get email and internet access. My primary email address has cost me almost $150 000 in lost wages and tuition. ( It came with my degree. ) However, if I steal the money to pay for that, it wouldn't really cost me anything. Wh

Slashdot Top Deals

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup." - H.L. Mencken

Close