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 TouchToneTommy on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
The FTC valiantly targets spammers 4
- Thread starter Dimandja
- Start date
sleipnir214
Programmer
All true.
However, none of that changes the fact that publication increases visibility.
Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!
TANSTAAFL!!
However, none of that changes the fact that publication increases visibility.
Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!
TANSTAAFL!!
petermeachem
Programmer
do-not-call registry
is taht a fairly recent thing in the US? The strangely named Telephone Preference Service has been going for quite some time now. It works a treat because the direct marketers don't want to waste money calling on people who aren't interested. The email marketers don't have the same inhibitions because it doesn't actually cost them anything to send the stuff out, partly because they are using other peoples pc's to send the stuff without asking nicely first.
is taht a fairly recent thing in the US? The strangely named Telephone Preference Service has been going for quite some time now. It works a treat because the direct marketers don't want to waste money calling on people who aren't interested. The email marketers don't have the same inhibitions because it doesn't actually cost them anything to send the stuff out, partly because they are using other peoples pc's to send the stuff without asking nicely first.
Isn't it about time consumers started being responsible for their computers? I still think licensing should be mandatory for driving the information superhighway. Don't we ticket people who drive cars that belch black smoke? Don't we stop people who speed, litter and otherwise interfere with the flow of traffic? If someone's got a zombie machine and is clueless enough to not know what's going on, jerk their connection. Don't just suspend it, cancel it. Let them take their infested machine somewhere else.
As far as Comcast taking action against spammers.... I'll believe it when I see it. They're one of the worst as far as ignoring abuse reports and not doing anything to correct the situation. I'm more inclined to believe that they're the ones originating it.
This is true only if you have registered for the do-not-call list. If you did not register you should also have no complaints.
One piece of advice that I give EVERYONE is: Go sign up for a free web-based e-mail address. Use that e-mail address ONLY when you sign up for newsletters, fill out online forms, post in online forums and newsgroups, etc. Use your "real" e-mail address only for family, friends, co-workers and people you personally know. Doing this will keep a majority of spam out of your primary in-box.
As far as Comcast taking action against spammers.... I'll believe it when I see it. They're one of the worst as far as ignoring abuse reports and not doing anything to correct the situation. I'm more inclined to believe that they're the ones originating it.
This is true only if you have registered for the do-not-call list. If you did not register you should also have no complaints.
One piece of advice that I give EVERYONE is: Go sign up for a free web-based e-mail address. Use that e-mail address ONLY when you sign up for newsletters, fill out online forms, post in online forums and newsgroups, etc. Use your "real" e-mail address only for family, friends, co-workers and people you personally know. Doing this will keep a majority of spam out of your primary in-box.
sleipnir214
Programmer
I do something very similar.
I have been using Linux-based email hosting to "bounce" emails to my main collection account at the ISP I use at home.
This gives me the luxury of handing anyone who wants an email address from me an address that is unique to that entity. If an entity-specific address begins showing up as the addressee of spam emails, I delete the address. And immediately stop doing business with that entity.
Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!
TANSTAAFL!!
I have been using Linux-based email hosting to "bounce" emails to my main collection account at the ISP I use at home.
This gives me the luxury of handing anyone who wants an email address from me an address that is unique to that entity. If an entity-specific address begins showing up as the addressee of spam emails, I delete the address. And immediately stop doing business with that entity.
Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!
TANSTAAFL!!
CajunCenturion
Programmer
Some interesting reading:
Buffalo Spammer
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Buffalo Spammer
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
sleipnir214
Programmer
It is interesting, particularly in light of this thread.
He wasn't convicted for spamming -- he was convicted for identity theft for sending spam using others' identities.
I've had a spammer use one of my emails as the sender of spam. Happily, it was one of my throwaway addresses and I was able to kill the address.
Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!
TANSTAAFL!!
He wasn't convicted for spamming -- he was convicted for identity theft for sending spam using others' identities.
I've had a spammer use one of my emails as the sender of spam. Happily, it was one of my throwaway addresses and I was able to kill the address.
Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!
TANSTAAFL!!
petermeachem
Programmer
he stole the identity of two Buffalo-area residents, which he then used to send out more than 800 million spam messages,"
What that mean exactly?
What that mean exactly?
sleipnir214
Programmer
It probably means he forged the two Buffalo-area residents' email addresses as the senders of his spam.
If so, it's an interesting legal precedent -- tying the use of another person's email address to identity theft.
Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!
TANSTAAFL!!
If so, it's an interesting legal precedent -- tying the use of another person's email address to identity theft.
Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!
TANSTAAFL!!
petermeachem
Programmer
For that you get 3 1/2 years! What do you get for speeding?
I can understand why viruses use real addresses, it just makes the whole situation more of a mess. But why would a spammer not just make up an address if they don't want quite a bit of returned mail.
Did these two unfortunate souls get up to 800 million bounces from bad To addresses. If that happened to me, I would be a little grumpy.
I can understand why viruses use real addresses, it just makes the whole situation more of a mess. But why would a spammer not just make up an address if they don't want quite a bit of returned mail.
Did these two unfortunate souls get up to 800 million bounces from bad To addresses. If that happened to me, I would be a little grumpy.
Spammers will do anything they can to get their spam out, regardless of who's e-mail address they use.
Rule # 1 about spammers is: Spammers lie.
Just assume that everything in the spam e-mail you receive is bogus. This makes it much easier when determining what to do with it. This is especially important when you're tempted to click the unsubscribe link in the e-mail. 90% of the time you are not unsubscribing, you're just validating your e-mail address for them.
Rule # 1 about spammers is: Spammers lie.
Just assume that everything in the spam e-mail you receive is bogus. This makes it much easier when determining what to do with it. This is especially important when you're tempted to click the unsubscribe link in the e-mail. 90% of the time you are not unsubscribing, you're just validating your e-mail address for them.
sleipnir214
Programmer
<facetious>
petermeachem:
Oh, c'mon. It takes less than that.
</facetious>
CajunCenturion's article did say:
The jail sentence is the maximum allowed under the law, due to Carmack's prior felony conviction for fraud in a federal case involving fake money orders
But I figure he's being sentenced to ~.14 seconds for every spam he sent out.
Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!
TANSTAAFL!!
petermeachem:
petermeachem said:
Oh, c'mon. It takes less than that.
</facetious>
CajunCenturion's article did say:
The jail sentence is the maximum allowed under the law, due to Carmack's prior felony conviction for fraud in a federal case involving fake money orders
But I figure he's being sentenced to ~.14 seconds for every spam he sent out.
Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!
TANSTAAFL!!
sleipnir214
Programmer
That .14 seconds per spam is based on 3[½] years.
Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!
TANSTAAFL!!
Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!
TANSTAAFL!!
-
1
- #34
SemperFiDownUnda
Instructor
One problem with this analogy. Sure we require people to know how to drive but we don't require them to have a quantum crypto security measures on their cars to stop someone from stealing their car and doing a ram raid with it. We don't stop that person from owning a car.
That said I have no problem with an ISP aggressively disconnecting customers net connections when spam is involved. We've talked about this in another thread before.
Just because your machine hasn't got hit don't think you are immune. Like Dimandja has said in another thread peoples computers are not as secure as they think. We all take the risk when driving on the internet. Some of us are better drivers then other .... but even M. Schumacher can be caught out.
Hope I've been helpful,
Wayne Francis
If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first
While we may not require them to have quantum crypto security measures on the road, we require them to be safe drivers. They have insurance, they have airbags, they have anti-lock brakes, and they know how to operate the vehicle safely. It should be the same thing on the Internet.
An ISP asking questions before signing up a customer would help.
"Do you have a firewall?"
"Do you have a current antivirus product?"
"Do you have your automatic updates enabled?" (This is for those who do not understand that when Windows has a problem, it applies to them too.)
"Do you have Active X disabled?"
"Do you have HTML disabled in your e-mail?"
"Do you like to open every e-mail you receive and click on the links regardless of what you hear about not doing it?"
"Do you willingly give your credit card number to anyone who asks for it?"
Certain things should be a requirement to be online. If ISP's would take responsibility for keeping their customers safe either thru education or enforcement, many things would not be a problem, including spam, viruses, zombie machines and the RIAA.
An ISP asking questions before signing up a customer would help.
"Do you have a firewall?"
"Do you have a current antivirus product?"
"Do you have your automatic updates enabled?" (This is for those who do not understand that when Windows has a problem, it applies to them too.)
"Do you have Active X disabled?"
"Do you have HTML disabled in your e-mail?"
"Do you like to open every e-mail you receive and click on the links regardless of what you hear about not doing it?"
"Do you willingly give your credit card number to anyone who asks for it?"
Certain things should be a requirement to be online. If ISP's would take responsibility for keeping their customers safe either thru education or enforcement, many things would not be a problem, including spam, viruses, zombie machines and the RIAA.
CajunCenturion
Programmer
That's not quite true. The law does not require that the driver have a car with airbags or anit-lock brakes. There are thousands of older model cars, quite legal, that do not have either airbags nor anti-lock brakes. The law requires that the manufacturers now include those safety features in the new cars they make. The onus in on the manufacturer, not the driver. It seems that by that analogy, your not putting the onus of responsibility on the user, but perhaps the ISP, or the OS manufacturer? Is that where it belongs in this case?Dollie said:
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
- Thread starter
- #37
This should explain why so many people have a gripe against Microsoft.
MS is popular by far. It is also unsafe by far - perhaps due to its popularity. OS after OS has introduced flaws - or has left previous flaws intact.
Please note: I am not willy nilly critisizing MS here. Remember that when some auto manufacturer introduces a clearly unsafe car, criticism from consumer advocates usually forces the manufacturer to either recall and fix the car or discontinue the model. As a result, cars today are safer - with seat belts, anti-lock brakes, air bags, etc.
It is healthy for everyone to critisize our OS manufacturers. It is unrealistic to demand that Net surfers rig their machines to some exacting standards - the onus is on the manufacturer who is already making money on them.
Dimandja
While I think it is good community manners to do all that you can to protect your machine, I think that this entire discusssion is missing the point. The criminal is responsible for criminal activity. Period.
[blue]"Well, once again my friend, we find that science is a two headed beast. One head is nice, it gives us aspirin and other modern conveniences,...but the other head of science is BAD! Oh, beware the other head of science, Arthur; it bites!!" - The Tick[/blue]
[blue]"Well, once again my friend, we find that science is a two headed beast. One head is nice, it gives us aspirin and other modern conveniences,...but the other head of science is BAD! Oh, beware the other head of science, Arthur; it bites!!" - The Tick[/blue]
- Status
Similar threads