Interesting tactic. I wonder how effective it will prove to be?
Tired of waiting for an answer? Try asking better questions. See: faq222-2244
Tired of waiting for an answer? Try asking better questions. See: faq222-2244
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations derfloh on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Spam the spammer?
- Thread starter carrr
- Start date
- Status
- Thread starter
- #3
- Thread starter
- #5
And it is likely that the second and third attempts will also fail. If scientists and inventors didn't believe in what they were doing, giving up after their first failure where would humanity be today?
So what if it appears that nothing has been learned from the previous failure. We don’t know what has been learned other than that spammers will go to great lengths to protect their turf.
At least an effort is being made to counter the Spammers.
So what if it appears that nothing has been learned from the previous failure. We don’t know what has been learned other than that spammers will go to great lengths to protect their turf.
At least an effort is being made to counter the Spammers.
Edmund Burke said:
- Thread starter
- #8
Stella740pl
Programmer
Let me play a devil's advocate here for a moment.
Isn't fighting spam with spam, or abuse with abuse is somewhat similar to a principle of vaccination? "Cure like with like." Maybe just right dosage and some other parameters should be figured out and adjusted, to not defeat the purpose of curing.
What do you say?
MasterRacker
Active member
Is this really abuse?
1. No spam is being generated. Existing messages are being returned to thier origin.
2. This is not a primitive "return to sender" system that can be fooled by spoofed return addresses. They are somehow identifying the originating machine.
If the originator is a zombie, I would venture to guess that the owner is already suffering since their bandwidth is probably already being hijacked by the spambot. I would agree that the ethics are a little gray, however I'm not sure there's much active harm. In the case of the clueless host, you'd simply be escalating an existing problem to the point that they recognize that they have a problem and call in an expert.
[purple]Jeff
It's never too early to begin preparing for [/purple]International Talk Like a Pirate Day
1. No spam is being generated. Existing messages are being returned to thier origin.
2. This is not a primitive "return to sender" system that can be fooled by spoofed return addresses. They are somehow identifying the originating machine.
If the originator is a zombie, I would venture to guess that the owner is already suffering since their bandwidth is probably already being hijacked by the spambot. I would agree that the ethics are a little gray, however I'm not sure there's much active harm. In the case of the clueless host, you'd simply be escalating an existing problem to the point that they recognize that they have a problem and call in an expert.
[purple]Jeff
It's never too early to begin preparing for [/purple]International Talk Like a Pirate Day
Stella740pl
Programmer
Dollie,
Is it really worse than plague, cholera, or pox?
Somewhat faster spreading, maybe, but worse? ;-)
I'm confused as to how they can guarantee delivery of e-mail to an IP address and not an e-mail address.
If my machine was a zombie, and I'm on dialup and get a different IP address every single time I dial in, how can they know if they are reaching me or the next poor sap who happens to get the IP allocated to them when they dial in? What about those with a dynamic IP assigned to their cable modem, they reset the modem and get a new IP... voila! Someone else gets the bounceback. There is no guarantee that a zombie on an IP right now is going to be on the same IP in 10 minutes. In my case, I would simply disconnect.
Bounces are generally frowned upon because senders are spoofed in spam 99.999% of the time. Many times the sending IP address is not a zombie but an open relay, or an anonymous remailer. Are they really creating a solution by notifying someone who doesn't care or worse, doesn't have a clue?
Stella, online I feel spammers are just as bad if not worse than the plague. They're choking bandwidth, killing off mail servers, ruining businesses, business models and reputations while creating a whole new IT field that is trying to cure us of it all. Some of the "cures" are an injection of the cause (ie. SpamVampire), some are just sugar pills (C/R systems), and some are killing flies with tanks (some, but not all, BL's). 25 years after the first spam, we are no closer to a "cure" than we are to curing cluelessness. As soon as something is implemented, someone thinks of a way to get around it. Computer technology is wonderfully flexible, isn't it??
Sorry bout the tangent there.... I'm rabidly anti-spam, and can get a little over-zealous when talking about the spammers themselves.
I should probably get down and let someone else have this...![[soapbox]](/data/assets/smilies/soapbox.gif "[soapbox] [soapbox]")
If my machine was a zombie, and I'm on dialup and get a different IP address every single time I dial in, how can they know if they are reaching me or the next poor sap who happens to get the IP allocated to them when they dial in? What about those with a dynamic IP assigned to their cable modem, they reset the modem and get a new IP... voila! Someone else gets the bounceback. There is no guarantee that a zombie on an IP right now is going to be on the same IP in 10 minutes. In my case, I would simply disconnect.
Bounces are generally frowned upon because senders are spoofed in spam 99.999% of the time. Many times the sending IP address is not a zombie but an open relay, or an anonymous remailer. Are they really creating a solution by notifying someone who doesn't care or worse, doesn't have a clue?
Stella, online I feel spammers are just as bad if not worse than the plague. They're choking bandwidth, killing off mail servers, ruining businesses, business models and reputations while creating a whole new IT field that is trying to cure us of it all. Some of the "cures" are an injection of the cause (ie. SpamVampire), some are just sugar pills (C/R systems), and some are killing flies with tanks (some, but not all, BL's). 25 years after the first spam, we are no closer to a "cure" than we are to curing cluelessness. As soon as something is implemented, someone thinks of a way to get around it. Computer technology is wonderfully flexible, isn't it??
Sorry bout the tangent there.... I'm rabidly anti-spam, and can get a little over-zealous when talking about the spammers themselves.
I should probably get down and let someone else have this...
I can't see how this is going to work. Even if they could guarantee picking the right machine, and could be sure that it wasn't a zombie, would spammers care? Mail servers aren't my end of the business, but presumably it must be possible to set one up that only has an outbox - where incoming mail is simply ignored. IBM can spam them all they like, they won't care.
I think the only thing that's likely to work is to somehow go after the companies/individuals who are advertising in the spam. They can't hide so effectively, as they need you to come to them and buy something. But I can see that even this approach is going to have big practical problems in implementation.
-- Chris Hunt
Webmaster & Tragedian
Extra Connections Ltd
I think the only thing that's likely to work is to somehow go after the companies/individuals who are advertising in the spam. They can't hide so effectively, as they need you to come to them and buy something. But I can see that even this approach is going to have big practical problems in implementation.
-- Chris Hunt
Webmaster & Tragedian
Extra Connections Ltd
![[ponder]](/data/assets/smilies/ponder.gif "[ponder] [ponder]")
- Status
Similar threads