Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Spam Technology

France Launches Anti-Spam Platform 128

njondet writes "French-law.net reports that the French government has just launched 'Signal Spam', an anti-spam platform created in association with public entities and private companies, such as Microsoft. Internet users will be able to report spam messages by mailing them to this platform which will act as a centralised monitor of spamming activities. The platform will generate a blacklist and help initiate prosecutions against spammers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

France Launches Anti-Spam Platform

Comments Filter:
  • and smoke a noxious cigarette to celebrate.
  • by MankyD ( 567984 ) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @10:24AM (#19103843) Homepage
    This is where the libertarian in me comes out and wonders if these things aren't better left to the private sector. On the other hand, perhaps having this information sent directly to authorities will result in more prosecutions (or more successful prosecutions) under laws similar to CAN-SPAM, (or maybe that's just wishful thinking.)
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )
      Given that SPAM is outlawed most places, and even if not then most of the offerings are illegal to import drugs, stock frauds, nigeria frauds, products with claimed medical effect without documentation, identity fraud, virus and trojans and so on then I see no problem with suspected illegal activity being reported to the authorities for investigation and possible prosecution. It's technically what I could do if I printed out my SPAMs and went to the local police station, except they'd never do anything abou
      • by MankyD ( 567984 )

        It's technically what I could do if I printed out my SPAMs and went to the local police station, except they'd never do anything about it.
        I guess this is my question. I have no problems with sending my spam to a government run central location (as long as its actually spam that I reviewed and sent by hand.) I'm more wondering if sending it to the authorities in this manner will give them motivation or ease in prosecuting.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by gustafsd ( 1006935 )
      The way i read it this is the government providing private interests with a service that would take a serious amount of cooperation to succeed and so they are speeding up the process. Cooperation in favor of competition
    • by rs232 ( 849320 ) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @10:43AM (#19103955)
      'having this information sent directly to authorities will result in more prosecutions .. under laws similar to CAN-SPAM'

      CAN-SPAM doesn't ban SPAM, what it does do is legitimise the sending of unsolicited commercial e-mail and specifically forbids e-mail recipients from suing the spammers. It's one of those Acts that do the exact opposite of what the name means. As such it should really be called the ENABLE-SPAM Act of 2003.

      was Re:Better as a Private Service?
      • As such it should really be called the ENABLE-SPAM Act of 2003.
        It is already pretty well known as the YOU CAN-SPAM Act. [google.com]
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Kjella ( 173770 )
        It's one of those Acts that do the exact opposite of what the name means.

        Or it does exactly what it says, if you read it like a verb. Hopefully a few spammers died of laughter thinking about it, how they got Congress to pass a "We CAN SPAM" act.
      • by jfengel ( 409917 )
        I always assume that any piece of legislation does the opposite of what its title says. The "Clear Skies Act" greatly increased the amount of pollution allowed. The "Freedom to Farm Act" was all about making it harder to be an individual farmer and easy to be a food-factory megacorporation. And let's not even get into the PATRIOT Act.

        The same goes for lobbying groups. Any advertisement paid for by "The Group To Preserve Habitat For Cute Little Critters" has oil fingerprints all over the check.
      • by Phroggy ( 441 ) <slashdot3 AT phroggy DOT com> on Sunday May 13, 2007 @12:33PM (#19104591) Homepage

        CAN-SPAM doesn't ban SPAM, what it does do is legitimise the sending of unsolicited commercial e-mail and specifically forbids e-mail recipients from suing the spammers. It's one of those Acts that do the exact opposite of what the name means. As such it should really be called the ENABLE-SPAM Act of 2003.
        Not quite. CAN-SPAM does legitimize the sending of unsolicited commercial e-mail with certain restrictions, but it also clearly defines e-mail that doesn't meet those requirements as being illegal. Virtually every single piece of spam I get violates the requirements of CAN-SPAM and is therefore illegal under US law. If CAN-SPAM were aggressively enforced, it would have a huge impact in reducing the amount of spam that gets sent. Any spam that is legal under CAN-SPAM is trivially easy to filter out through technical means, and if we did start to see legal spam, Congress could simply amend the law to address the problem.

        To reiterate: while CAN-SPAM does define certain types of spam as legitimate, that's OK because none of the spam being sent is that kind of spam. If this changes, the law can be fixed later.

        However, you are correct that CAN-SPAM also prohibits individuals from suing spammers. If the government were doing its job and aggressively prosecuting them, then private lawsuits would be redundant and unnecessary, and I'm sure that was the original thinking. However, that's not happening. That's a problem.
        • yeah, that's why I get spam for viagra or porn that says at the bottom some disclaimer that it's ok under US spam laws because this particular piece of spam has fulfills some loophole-style requirement.

          • by gmack ( 197796 )
            And you take their word for it?

            Rule #1: Spammers lie.
            • by Phroggy ( 441 )
              Exactly.

              That Viagra spam is NOT complying with CAN-SPAM, no matter what they say at the bottom. The fine print is just there to trick you into thinking what they're doing is somehow legal, so you'll assume you can't take action against them.
    • Left to the private sector? ROFLMAO!

      The private sector are the spammers, why would you give them control? Stupid libertots.
      • by MankyD ( 567984 )

        Yes, there are certainly private sector spammers, but there are also plenty of private sector spam detectors. The reason that I would suggest leaving it to the private sector is that they have strong motivation to improve and evolve their detection methods.

        On a side note, you need to spare the ad-hominem attacks. I never said I was libertarian (I am not). I simply stated that my belief in this area might be comparable with a libertarians beliefs. Insults do no one any good.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by jonbryce ( 703250 )
          The private sector has a strong motivation to simultaneously make money out of sending spam, and make even more money detecting it.

          It is not in the interests of the malware detection companies to eliminate the problem, because then they would eliminate their own business.
      • by k1e0x ( 1040314 )
        Stupid statists, they think government is the answer to everything. so tell me.. what had your big scarey government law done about it, besides put a few kids in jail? "zOMGOZORZ! There is still spam even after we wrote some words down on paper saying you can't?!?!?"

        According to my inbox it looks like Google is doing a better job than anyone else.

    • by k1e0x ( 1040314 )
      The libertarian in you should be more worried about what else it can do, and who else it can put in jail, and really for that matter why is it against the law to spam again? Does a law stop it? Are the ISPs unable to find a true solution? If they could they could charge a premium easily. This is the bad part about the government running such a service.. because THEY can put you directly in jail, BeSafe can not.
    • Aspects of this will have to be left in the hands of the private sector. But for example: stock pump and dump scams are best handled by the SEC or the regulatory agency in play at the particular foreign stock exchange. It would be prohibitively difficult to require that the individual exchanges look into these things as they have not been historically required to.

      Other aspects such as the large number of commercial software programs such as MS Office and Adobe Photoshop are likely better regulated by the co
    • by SL Baur ( 19540 )

      On the other hand, perhaps having this information sent directly to authorities will result in more prosecutions (or more successful prosecutions) under laws similar to CAN-SPAM, (or maybe that's just wishful thinking.)

      Blizzard cannot control violation of ToS SPAM on their own servers. What makes you think laws and governments can improve on that?

      The libertarian in me says that the model of email is totally broken. If it's free to send ads to everyone, someone will do it. A less broken model would require paying the recipient of email to read it. Hey, if I were getting US$.25 or whatever for every ad I get in email, bring it on. (See the Cyphernomican, old cypherpunks list archives, etc. for discussion of that).

      • The difference is that governments can potentially put people in jail. Whether or not they actually do is another matter. Local police forces tend to think that catching murderers is a bigger priority, and I suppose it probably is.
    • by Guppy06 ( 410832 )
      "This is where the libertarian in me comes out and wonders if these things aren't better left to the private sector."

      You mean like the past ten years?

      The "private sector" is where all this spam is coming from to begin with!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 13, 2007 @10:28AM (#19103865)
    I wonder how long before we see a massive DDOS attack against the infrastructure used to run this.
  • by Arkaic ( 784460 ) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @10:33AM (#19103885)
    This seems like an unnecessary duplication of effort. There are already established providers of blacklists, such as spamcop. Why not work with them and help develop easier ways for users to report spam via their email client?
    • There are already established providers of blacklists, such as spamcop. Why not work with them and help develop easier ways for users to report spam via their email client?

      Because there's a lot of folks out there who distrust private firms and their solutions and/or actually believe a legislated solution is always the best way to solve a problem.

      • There are even more people that distrust the government.
        • by Ravnen ( 823845 )
          I would say this is much more true in the USA than in Europe, perhaps with the exception of the UK, and I think the electoral systems in the USA and UK are in part behind the lack of trust in the state. In general, I trust the state in my country, and if I had to choose between the state and a corporation, I would say I trust the state more, because it's democratically elected, and has no profit motive.
          • European countries are smaller which changes the dynamic a lot. When the EU starts usurping power, you may change your mind. Personally, I trust profit as a motive more than the altruism of someone who wants to be (re)elected. If I dislike Walmart, I can shop elsewhere. If I dislike the war in Iraq, I can't stop paying taxes.
            • And what about people who work in Walmart because it's the only job that they can get? They can't stop working there....

              In France their wages, hours, holiday, etc would be protected. So for them, perhaps, the state provides a friendly, helpful barrier against the raw unfettered capitalism that you think is something you can just opt out of when you want.

              • And what about people who work in Walmart because it's the only job that they can get?

                Questions:

                Why is it the only job they can get?
                So then is it good or bad that they can work at WalMart?
                If WalMart disappeared these people would never work again?
                Would people be better off if WalMart had, in exchange for less growth, always paid its employees more than they were willing to work for?

                • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )
                  Studies have actually shown that, counterintuitively, when a Wal-Mart opens somewhere the average income in the area decreases, probably because it drives other, higher paying retailers out of business.

                  So the answer to b is bad, c is no and d is yes.
                • Questions from you.

                  * Why is it the only job they can get?

                  Who knows, who cares (they don't, neither does Walmart)

                  * So then is it good or bad that they can work at WalMart?

                  Neither. It's many things, none of which are simple enough to reduce to a good/ bad or moral argument

                  * If WalMart disappeared these people would never work again?

                  What, disappeared like something from a child's story book? Please explain how Walmart could 'disappear'

                  * Would people be better off if WalMart had,
                  • * If WalMart disappeared these people would never work again?

                    What, disappeared like something from a child's story book? Please explain how Walmart could 'disappear'
                    ---
                    Sometimes others are better at the job.

                    World's Biggest Retailer Wal-Mart Closes Up Shop in Germany
                    http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2112746,0 0.html [dw-world.de]
                    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                      Walmart fucked up. "Like, did you know that American pillowcases are a different size than German ones are?" he asked. Wal-Mart Germany ended up with a huge pile of pillowcases they couldn't sell to German customers."

                      I know that and I'm neither American nor German.

                      That said, this hasn't disappeared - the stores have been bought, and Walmart won't be doing some of this again:

                      '....management had threatened to close certain stores if staff did not agree to work to working longer hours than their contracts fore
                • by 955301 ( 209856 )
                  Why is it the only job they can get?

                  - because their town is too small to sustain a globally competitive cost-cutting store & the collection of mom and pot stores (which tend to keep money in the area btw).

                  So then is it good or bad that they can work at WalMart?

                  Bad - Noone who works at Wal-mart should be trying to live off their income. Wal-mart, goodwill and lower positions at fast-food franchises are only good for sustaining kids who live at home and are trying to save up for the next step (more educat
            • by Ravnen ( 823845 )
              I agree that being small makes countries more democratic. The EU might be a threat to democracy if it had more power, but in economic terms, it is only a tiny part of GDP, a few percentage points at most, whereas many national governments are over half. It has extensive powers in creating regulations, but as a state apparatus, the EU is actually very small.
            • That makes no sense. Iraq is exactly what you get when you have a state-with-profit-motive.

              The point of a democracy is that you can replace the people at the top if you don't like what they do.

              In a state-with-profit-motive, the people at the top would only get replaced if they failed to gouge out enough profit, and they would only be replaced by people who are prepared to gouge out _more_ profit. So you would replace an Iraq-war-starting government with one who is prepared to start not just one but two

      • by Ilgaz ( 86384 ) *
        What if I don't trust a very active, imperial country government with my private mails even if they are spam?

        I better keep reporting French spammers via Spamcop, they make into SCBL for anyone opting in and live with peace of mind. At one point they will really have to login to that "american" system since planet will start blocking their country blocks if this complete lack of management continues.

        See what happened with South Korea. They weren't caring about spam reports and after they figured their indust
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by mat ( 25086 )
      The goal is not to build another blacklist database, but to take legal actions against (french) spammers.
      • by Ilgaz ( 86384 ) *
        Spamcop is originally and still a abuse report system. Spamcop BL is completely optional. I am a paying spamcop user and I still put SCBL flagged messages to Junk folder for review instead of vanishing them like open proxies.

        They could login to spamcop ISP account and see the mess their users create 24/7, mail the users ISP account a warning saying they should virus clean their system.

        The data is THERE, on a time tested, reliable and secure reporting system. For FREE. Also if they are obsessed with big corp
    • by Guppy06 ( 410832 )
      "There are already established providers of blacklists, such as spamcop. Why not work with them and help develop easier ways for users to report spam via their email client?"

      Because, as humorous as this sounds, the government has more accountability.
    • by Ilgaz ( 86384 ) *
      Poor Spamcop tries to send abuse reports to some very popular French ISPs for years and they get either filtered or bounced. Now they "invent" spamcop service again.

      BTW a suggestion: While posting to public, prefer spamcop.net instead of spamcop. You know, those thieves at spamcop.com
  • Yes this'll work (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Colin Smith ( 2679 ) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @10:33AM (#19103891)
    Because.

    1: We all know how quickly the law works... Talk about a bottleneck.
    2: Most spammers operate outwith the control of any single government.
    3: Many spammers operate through compromised proxy systems.

    Still, at least they're being seen to be doing something and this is the important bit for the politicians.
     
    • It may help. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by khasim ( 1285 ) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Sunday May 13, 2007 @10:55AM (#19104033)
      Depending upon how it is implemented and how they evolve it.

      1: We all know how quickly the law works... Talk about a bottleneck.

      But it seems to be the only way to actually get the spammers. Filtering doesn't affect them. Their bandwidth is essentially free.

      2: Most spammers operate outwith the control of any single government.

      Not really. Each individual spammer lives in a country and is governed by the laws of that country. No single set of laws govern ALL spammers, but you can target some of them.

      3: Many spammers operate through compromised proxy systems.

      The technology should just be one aspect of this.

      The spammers usually don't send out crap on their own (unless it is to advertise their services). This is one of the classic "follow the money" issues.

      The Register ran an article that I cannot find right now. It was about how Company A hired Company B to send out ads to certain addresses. Company B hired Company C to send the ads. Company C needed more names so it bought a list of email addresses off of eBay from Person D.

      It's easy for a government to handle research like that. Companies respond a LOT quicker when the request for information comes from their government.

      And companies don't like having the government digging through their paperwork.

      Sure, you risk "Joe Jobs", but overall, it should get the legitimate companies to be a LOT more careful before they outsource their next "email advertising campaign".

      And that means that some of the money in spamming will dry up.

      • by tindur ( 658483 )

        But it seems to be the only way to actually get the spammers.
        The only way to get spammers is to lynch them.
      • by cp.tar ( 871488 )

        Each individual spammer lives in a country and is governed by the laws of that country.

        And since I've read several stories on /. so far about some or other citizen of another country being extradited to the USA after breaking an American law in his own country, maybe the US could start prosecuting spammers all over the world and finally do something useful with their "Global Policeman" policy.

    • 2: Most spammers operate outwith the control of any single government.

      Yes, but if countries actually prosecuted spammers to any real extent we could blacklist the rest. France has just taken the first step towards getting on a whitelist.

      If the proposal for tax-free overtime goes through I expect France to become something of an IT powerhouse.

    • 1: We all know how quickly the law works... Talk about a bottleneck.
      2: Most spammers operate outwith the control of any single government.
      3: Many spammers operate through compromised proxy systems.
      You forgot:
      4: ???
      5: Profit!
  • initiate prosecutions

    How about "fire cruise missiles!" (since France does not have Chuck Norris)

    • by Detritus ( 11846 )
      We could lend them Tom Cruise.
      • Off-topic perhaps, but now-president Sarkozy rigged a publicity stunt around a year ago where he met (Tom) Cruise - just by coincidence, of course - in front of the Press. Perhaps it's all part of some secret "Tom Missle" anti-spam plan?
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      Belgium regulary lends Jean Claude van dam to France. It's like Chuck Norris with insane speech.
  • Any organization that uses the word "internaut" to refer to people who use the Internet is doomed to failure, regardless of its intentions. Combined with the fact that it's a French, governmental organization working with MicroSoft, how could it possibly succeed?

    Seriously, how long until the zombie networks retaliate? I'd like to have some marshmallows ready for the server fire that follows.
  • by ancientt ( 569920 ) <ancientt@yahoo.com> on Sunday May 13, 2007 @10:42AM (#19103953) Homepage Journal

    I'm thinking this is a good idea, get a serious organization behind fighting spam, not just one with serious goals and effort but one with serious authority. I wonder if the citizens (who are ultimately paying for it of course) have much control over how it is set up? I can envision a conflict between our marketing department and the government going something like this:
    Marketing: "No, it's not spam, we put in opt out links and only send it to people we have a relationship with."
    Gov: "But 200 people called it spam, you're now listed as a spammer. Sorry."
    Marketing: "That's no fair! How do we change our status?"
    Gov: "The will of the people has spoken, but I don't have lunch plans, maybe the people could buy....?"
    Marketing: "Do you like steak?"
    ....Fast forward two years...
    Gov: "I realize our office receives a lot of criticism for not allowing the public to mark mail as spam, but in reality many of the emails we receive are legitimate businesses using legal means to advertise. We will not allow the public to slur the good name of reputable companies."

  • by RareButSeriousSideEf ( 968810 ) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @10:50AM (#19104003) Homepage Journal
    Your post advocates a

    (x) technical (x) legislative ( ) market-based (x) vigilante

    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
    (x) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
    (x) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
    ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
    ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
    ( ) Users of email will not put up with it
    ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
    ( ) The police will not put up with it
    ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
    ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
    ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
    ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
    (x) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

    Specifically, your plan fails to account for

    ( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
    (x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
    (x) Open relays in foreign countries
    ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
    ( ) Asshats
    (x) Jurisdictional problems
    ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
    ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
    ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
    ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
    ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
    (x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
    (x) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
    ( ) Extreme profitability of spam
    ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
    (x) Technically illiterate politicians
    (x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
    ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
    (x) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
    (x) Outlook

    and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

    (x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
    been shown practical
    ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
    ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
    (x) Blacklists suck
    ( ) Whitelists suck
    ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
    ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
    (x) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
    ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
    ( ) Sending email should be free
    (x) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
    ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
    ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
    ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
    ( ) I don't want the government reading my email
    ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

    Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

    (x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
    (x) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
    ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
    house down!
    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Uh, how can this be classified as a vigilante effort when the French government is advocating it?
    • Not sure why Outlook poses a problem here though.
  • Can't keep up with billions of messages per day.
    Time to pay 1 cent per message.

  • by matt me ( 850665 ) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @10:53AM (#19104027)
    Spam has no borders. We need a *worldwide* effort.
    • Yes, it's like terrorism in that respect. Also in the respect that thate volume of spam could be reduced if suspected spammers were shipped off to be unwilling participants in a ethically questionable CIA psychological experiment in Gitmo.
  • Better idea (Score:4, Funny)

    by OldManAndTheC++ ( 723450 ) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @11:00AM (#19104071)

    Duplicate the platform onto a series of servers and put them into reinforced bunkers strung along the border [wikipedia.org]. That ought to stop spam from entering the country.

    Oh, and be sure not to leave a gap in the Ardennes...

  • Unfortunately quite a bit of the site is waiting to be translated but it's a decent initiative. I like the following advice.

    "Every time you send a message, check that the email addresses contained in the recipient's field and cc can be clearly transmitted. If you want to send a copy to certain recipients, choose the field bcc or cci . Ensure you do not use the tool "forward to a friend" presented in some sites allowing giving an email to a third party without his consent."

    http://www.signal-spam.fr/en/index. [signal-spam.fr]
  • When there's easy millions to be made, it's just too irresistible, and will always be considered worth the risk. And all the spam laws are full of holes to allow the big boys through, and that hypocrisy does not go unnoticed, just like in the drug wars. Don't expect any respect for the law while that continues. This being France, the spammers will probably riot :-) In the meantime, I'm sure the prison industry will appreciate the influx of fresh meat. Unless you can assure they never get a dime, you will ge
  • Personally I think that rather the source of these spam should be dealt with. Since about 1,5 week, I'm receiving a lot of German spam for companies on the Frankfurt stock exchange. Authorities should rather investigate these companies. This is not some innocent spam anymore, but financial fraud on a very large scale. Companies have gone broke already for other kinds of fraud...

    And of course, (l)users and mail server sysadmins should start to secure there machines, so there would not be those huge botnets
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Nasarius ( 593729 )

      Authorities should rather investigate these companies.
      Maybe. Do you have any evidence that the company itself sent out the spam? "Joe jobs" happen, and in the case of a publicly traded company, it could just as easily be someone who has a stake and is trying to influence the price.
      • by pbhj ( 607776 )
        >>> "Do you have any evidence that the company itself sent out the spam?"

        No, but I'm guessing that the company itself will and governments tend to have ways of finding this type of information. They can run a tax audit and look for the source of transactions and look for the payments to "MadIgorsSpamporium@moscownet.ru". They can send in an undercover agent to gather intel that spam is a main revenue winner.

        I'd hazard that taking down a few companies - and imprisoning the bosses - that are using sp
  • read the english version of the site with a french accent in their head? ...
  • menu change (Score:2, Funny)

    by sidemouse ( 789788 )
    The lobster thermidor aux crevettes with a Mornay sauce garnished with truffle paté, brandy and with a fried egg on top... is no longer available with spam.
  • Maybe it's just me, or maybe it's because there was another space-related story nearby, but when I saw "France Launches Anti-Spam Platform", the first image that came to mind was an orbital bombardment platform for eliminating spammers from orbit. Now that's the kind of technology taxpayer money should be spent on!
  • I wrote Signal Spam (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JohnGrahamCumming ( 684871 ) * <slashdot@@@jgc...org> on Sunday May 13, 2007 @01:34PM (#19104961) Homepage Journal
    I wrote the code that is behind this web site. I'll try to answer questions without giving up confidential information if people are interested.

    John.
  • Just publicly publish the names & addresses of the originators, and let the villagers with torches and pitchforks take care of it.
    (Not entirely meant as a tongue-in-cheek solution)
  • by renoX ( 11677 )
    I faintly remember that the French government tried something like that some years ago, only to have the server receiving the forwarded Spam crash under the load..

    We'll see if it work better this time.
  • Those crazy French. wanadoo.fr is just a seething hot-bed of miscreants. Think they would do something about that first.
  • Maybe better, but this looks like a copycat of Knujon [knujon.net]. Not that another anti-spam establishment is a bad idea :)

Counting in binary is just like counting in decimal -- if you are all thumbs. -- Glaser and Way

Working...