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
Yes.
[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]
CajunCenturion
Programmer
Absolutely that criminal is still a criminal. Just because you made it easier for him/her to perform the deed does not change the fact that deed is criminal.
That being said, only a fool would not do what is reasonable to protect themselves.
The question is how to define reasonable.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
That being said, only a fool would not do what is reasonable to protect themselves.
The question is how to define reasonable.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
sleipnir214
Programmer
I'm confused. Are we still talking about spam, or has the Wi-Fi thread invaded?
Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!
TANSTAAFL!!
Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!
TANSTAAFL!!
CajunCenturion
Programmer
Actually, I think both threads have been "branching" out.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
The main problem with spam is that it all goes back to whether or not people know how to surf and read e-mail safely. We all know that there is a certain level of common sense that we all have, but we often assume that the rest of the world online has that same common sense. We also know that our own congress does NOT have that common sense or we wouldn't be discussing various laws that they are attempting to enforce. Spammers are viewed as criminals for many reasons: stealing bandwidth, various fraudulent schemes, identity theft, and what the Buffalo spammer was convicted of, ID theft and falsifying business records.
We expect people to know what to do online, and how to protect themselves from everything from page hijackers to viruses in e-mail to active x files or other scripts that send spam from a zombie machine. The problem is that THEY DON'T. My own mother, who I've been attempting to teach for years, still thinks that if she hits the wrong button her computer will explode. (The day her monitor shorted out and started a fire helped with that impression.) She still opens everything. The only thing really saving her are the automatic updates to windows and her antivirus, and the firewall put into place.
Not all people have someone to hold their hand online. Student drivers need a grown up with them for a certain period of time. Somewhere, somehow there needs to be a "driver's ed" for the internet.
The biggest question is how to do that? Stopping spam is, again, like waiting for the Atlantic ocean to evaporate. Might happen, but probably won't. As long as there are open relays, unsecure mail servers, script kiddies and scam artists, there will be spam.
We expect people to know what to do online, and how to protect themselves from everything from page hijackers to viruses in e-mail to active x files or other scripts that send spam from a zombie machine. The problem is that THEY DON'T. My own mother, who I've been attempting to teach for years, still thinks that if she hits the wrong button her computer will explode. (The day her monitor shorted out and started a fire helped with that impression.) She still opens everything. The only thing really saving her are the automatic updates to windows and her antivirus, and the firewall put into place.
Not all people have someone to hold their hand online. Student drivers need a grown up with them for a certain period of time. Somewhere, somehow there needs to be a "driver's ed" for the internet.
The biggest question is how to do that? Stopping spam is, again, like waiting for the Atlantic ocean to evaporate. Might happen, but probably won't. As long as there are open relays, unsecure mail servers, script kiddies and scam artists, there will be spam.
- Thread starter
- #46
Internet is still young, and yet so pervasive and powerful. Therein lies the problem.
There are many manufacturers who have been introducing very good protective services. Unfortunately, you can't go to any one place to integrate all the good stuff into your machine.
Remember how popups were driving you up the wall until you installed the Google Toolbar? Remember how viruses were keeping you awake at night until automatic updates were introduced by anti-virus makers? There is progress being made in all fronts. Ok, almost. <Obligatory MS bash> I am still leery of MS automatic upgrades - I just know some of my applications will start failing<Obligatory>.
One day, a robust OS will be available and will include popup blockers, anti-virus features, anti-spam mechanism and, most of all, a way to set all this up unambiguously. Ever tried to figure out what all the Security and Privacy settings in your Internet Options (IE) really mean? If anything?
Dimandja
There are many manufacturers who have been introducing very good protective services. Unfortunately, you can't go to any one place to integrate all the good stuff into your machine.
Remember how popups were driving you up the wall until you installed the Google Toolbar? Remember how viruses were keeping you awake at night until automatic updates were introduced by anti-virus makers? There is progress being made in all fronts. Ok, almost. <Obligatory MS bash> I am still leery of MS automatic upgrades - I just know some of my applications will start failing<Obligatory>.
One day, a robust OS will be available and will include popup blockers, anti-virus features, anti-spam mechanism and, most of all, a way to set all this up unambiguously. Ever tried to figure out what all the Security and Privacy settings in your Internet Options (IE) really mean? If anything?
Dimandja
sleipnir214
Programmer
Dollie:
I have been saying for years that if "sense" were truly "common" we would have a one-word nomenclature for the phenomenon.
All:
The problem is an understanding of the nature of the threats and how to combat them.
A member of some primitive tribe from the highlands of New Guinea, for example, would probably not know to lock the door to a home in New York. Where he comes from, the village huts don't even have doors, much less locks. And the concept of "ownership" and "theft" is very different in some tribal cultures.
Although my example is extreme, for a lot of people going online for the first time, their understanding of what is going on may as well be described as "I don't know. Magic?" And they aren't capable of even identifying the dangers.
Part of this has come about because of the commoditization of computers. Microsoft's success at market share and their efforts to make it possible for even the most computer-illiterate soul to use a computer have handed a great number of people the rope necessary to hang themselves. [PLEASE NOTE: I am not saying at all that Microsoft is in any way, shape or form responsible for troubles newbies find themselves in. And I am grateful to Microsoft for having made the PC commodity hardware -- after all, that's one reason why Linux is able to be successful.]
But abuse of ignorance does not make turning a person's PC into a spam zombie any less of a crime.
Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!
TANSTAAFL!!
I have been saying for years that if "sense" were truly "common" we would have a one-word nomenclature for the phenomenon.
All:
The problem is an understanding of the nature of the threats and how to combat them.
A member of some primitive tribe from the highlands of New Guinea, for example, would probably not know to lock the door to a home in New York. Where he comes from, the village huts don't even have doors, much less locks. And the concept of "ownership" and "theft" is very different in some tribal cultures.
Although my example is extreme, for a lot of people going online for the first time, their understanding of what is going on may as well be described as "I don't know. Magic?" And they aren't capable of even identifying the dangers.
Part of this has come about because of the commoditization of computers. Microsoft's success at market share and their efforts to make it possible for even the most computer-illiterate soul to use a computer have handed a great number of people the rope necessary to hang themselves. [PLEASE NOTE: I am not saying at all that Microsoft is in any way, shape or form responsible for troubles newbies find themselves in. And I am grateful to Microsoft for having made the PC commodity hardware -- after all, that's one reason why Linux is able to be successful.]
But abuse of ignorance does not make turning a person's PC into a spam zombie any less of a crime.
Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!
TANSTAAFL!!
SemperFiDownUnda
Instructor
Some good points have been made here.
Never point the finger at the victem of a crime for fault. Sure educate them but never say a criminal isn't a criminal because they found easy prey. If we go with the thinking that its computers users fault that their computers get hacked then we are opening up a can of worms.
Does this mean we should let people just be abused? No. At times we must protect the inoscent from themselves and others. But regulating everything, including to the nth degree, is stupid IMHO. What do you think would happen to the we required users to be "Certified"?
1) You can not inforce it globally so all you do is move the machines that are sending spam off shore at best
2) If you impliment it how many people do you think will actually
a) Pay for this .... it will cost ... firewalls, training, etc costs money
b) Pass the certification
c) Even bother with all the trouble
Now you might say that would be good...internet with less people....
But if there are less people on the internet less companies and organisations and individuals would publish information to the web thus making the web less attractive. Atrophy would set in.
Also setting these measures in places would make the internet more of a economical class based system as the poor would/could not use it. Right now there are many individuals and organisations that normally wouldn't be able to afford to get on the internet at all but with computers, internet access, etc that are donated they can. Some small schools, child care agencies, nursing homes, etc would not be able to exposes the wealth of information that is out there. If it all becomes "to hard" to get people like this online then they won't.
So lets point the finger, like the goverment is doing, at the bad guys.
By all means increase the awareness of people. Offer to give courses at your local community centres, schools, nursing homes, community colleges, libraries, etc. Educate the masses don't regulate them.
Hope I've been helpful,
Wayne Francis
If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first
Never point the finger at the victem of a crime for fault. Sure educate them but never say a criminal isn't a criminal because they found easy prey. If we go with the thinking that its computers users fault that their computers get hacked then we are opening up a can of worms.
Does this mean we should let people just be abused? No. At times we must protect the inoscent from themselves and others. But regulating everything, including to the nth degree, is stupid IMHO. What do you think would happen to the we required users to be "Certified"?
1) You can not inforce it globally so all you do is move the machines that are sending spam off shore at best
2) If you impliment it how many people do you think will actually
a) Pay for this .... it will cost ... firewalls, training, etc costs money
b) Pass the certification
c) Even bother with all the trouble
Now you might say that would be good...internet with less people....
But if there are less people on the internet less companies and organisations and individuals would publish information to the web thus making the web less attractive. Atrophy would set in.
Also setting these measures in places would make the internet more of a economical class based system as the poor would/could not use it. Right now there are many individuals and organisations that normally wouldn't be able to afford to get on the internet at all but with computers, internet access, etc that are donated they can. Some small schools, child care agencies, nursing homes, etc would not be able to exposes the wealth of information that is out there. If it all becomes "to hard" to get people like this online then they won't.
So lets point the finger, like the goverment is doing, at the bad guys.
By all means increase the awareness of people. Offer to give courses at your local community centres, schools, nursing homes, community colleges, libraries, etc. Educate the masses don't regulate them.
Hope I've been helpful,
Wayne Francis
If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first
I can understand trying to regulate spammers. I just don't think it's going to work. Once one method is put into place, they just find another way to get around it. It's hard to pin down a scam artist and hold him responsible.
At what point do we stop saying "Oh dear, you just sit here on your unprotected high speed connection and leave it wide open. We can't hold you responsible for not fastening your safety belt. We know you didn't mean any harm when you ignored all the warnings we gave you."?
The internet may be new, but there are way too many people online now to say that they're all undereducated in ways to protect themselves. That number is going to drop steadily until we see that just about everyone on the planet is online.
We all get junk mail in our regular mailbox. We've all learned how to deal with it by throwing it away. The people who sit and open spam and click links are probably the same ones who sit and go through every single piece of USPS mail as well. The spammer's biggest customer is the one P.T. Barnum went after...a sucker born every minute.
I don't think spam can be put under any control by one nation when other nations are just as prevalent at allowing it. Regulation will put some people's minds at ease, but it will also put other minds to work at finding a way around it.
I agree that it's wrong to blame the victim, but only when the victim is truly a victim.
I think it's a two way street. When the same person keeps playing hockey on the freeway at rush hour then wonders why they keep getting hit by cars... well....
At what point do we stop saying "Oh dear, you just sit here on your unprotected high speed connection and leave it wide open. We can't hold you responsible for not fastening your safety belt. We know you didn't mean any harm when you ignored all the warnings we gave you."?
The internet may be new, but there are way too many people online now to say that they're all undereducated in ways to protect themselves. That number is going to drop steadily until we see that just about everyone on the planet is online.
We all get junk mail in our regular mailbox. We've all learned how to deal with it by throwing it away. The people who sit and open spam and click links are probably the same ones who sit and go through every single piece of USPS mail as well. The spammer's biggest customer is the one P.T. Barnum went after...a sucker born every minute.
I don't think spam can be put under any control by one nation when other nations are just as prevalent at allowing it. Regulation will put some people's minds at ease, but it will also put other minds to work at finding a way around it.
I agree that it's wrong to blame the victim, but only when the victim is truly a victim.
I think it's a two way street. When the same person keeps playing hockey on the freeway at rush hour then wonders why they keep getting hit by cars... well....
SemperFiDownUnda
Instructor
The thing about spam is that, at least for me, most of it is for US based companies. We can regulate that. Heck if the FBI can get to Americans living offshore and setting up gambling web sites targeting Americans they can fight the majority of the spam. We can target the spammers that are based in the US. No we can't control the rest of the world but atleast spam won't be hitting us from every direction. Spam is so hard to control because it is out of control. As we cut down on it it will get easier to get a hold of.
What do you think would be easier....regulating a few spammers or millions of general users? I mean really the amount of effort policing hundreds of millions of people could be better focused on the problem in my opinion. And I would say the majority of internet users don't know how to properly protect themselves. Most of my friends have no concept of what exactly their virus protection software does. They don't know what a firewall is for. They have no concept of what happens when you put a share on your home network. They have no clue that downloading and running programs from sites you are clueless about is dangerous. I educate them in laymans terms every chance I get.
So if a computer user doesn't lock down their computer with a firewall, virus protection, and host of other methods then they are not a victim if their computer gets jacked?
Thats to me is like telling the woman that was gang raped in Syndey a few years ago at a train station one night that she isn't a victim because she wasn't smart enough to protect herself.
I'm sure no normal person purposely installs viruses, etc on their machine. Just because they are clueless doesn't mean they are not the victim. And there are A LOT of clueless people out there. I've worked with many of them. You can tell them something 100 times but it just won't sink in. Some people like chain letters....some people actually think the get rich quick emails are real....some people really think that some pill can make them 3" bigger :/
Agian there are points I say that we definately need to take action. If an ISP has emails flooding from a computer then shut that connection down and notify the user. It is reactionary but I think thats all we can do for the average person until they decide on and build some type of secure email system.
Just my 2¢
Hope I've been helpful,
Wayne Francis
If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first
What do you think would be easier....regulating a few spammers or millions of general users? I mean really the amount of effort policing hundreds of millions of people could be better focused on the problem in my opinion. And I would say the majority of internet users don't know how to properly protect themselves. Most of my friends have no concept of what exactly their virus protection software does. They don't know what a firewall is for. They have no concept of what happens when you put a share on your home network. They have no clue that downloading and running programs from sites you are clueless about is dangerous. I educate them in laymans terms every chance I get.
So if a computer user doesn't lock down their computer with a firewall, virus protection, and host of other methods then they are not a victim if their computer gets jacked?
Thats to me is like telling the woman that was gang raped in Syndey a few years ago at a train station one night that she isn't a victim because she wasn't smart enough to protect herself.
I'm sure no normal person purposely installs viruses, etc on their machine. Just because they are clueless doesn't mean they are not the victim. And there are A LOT of clueless people out there. I've worked with many of them. You can tell them something 100 times but it just won't sink in. Some people like chain letters....some people actually think the get rich quick emails are real....some people really think that some pill can make them 3" bigger :/
Agian there are points I say that we definately need to take action. If an ISP has emails flooding from a computer then shut that connection down and notify the user. It is reactionary but I think thats all we can do for the average person until they decide on and build some type of secure email system.
Just my 2¢
Hope I've been helpful,
Wayne Francis
If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first
I think you're correct on all counts except when comparing a newbie to a rape victim. Violent crime isn't a good comparison to spam. I like to think of newbies surfing the net as more like a car full of teenagers barrelling down the road, simply wreckless.
I truly do think it's possible to educate internet users about spam and other perils, but I also believe that part, or most, of that responsibility should lie with the computer manufacturer and the ISP. I don't see what's so difficult about Billy Bob's ISP requiring all users to have a firewall, at least offer a free software firewall like Zone Alarm on their ISP install disks. I also don't see why something like that is pre-installed on any computer with a modem.
Maybe something could be done on both ends. While regulation or education won't be a solid solution (more spammers are born daily, just as new internet users are), it'd be a start. Maybe I just dream too much!![[upsidedown]](/data/assets/smilies/upsidedown.gif "[upsidedown] [upsidedown]")
I truly do think it's possible to educate internet users about spam and other perils, but I also believe that part, or most, of that responsibility should lie with the computer manufacturer and the ISP. I don't see what's so difficult about Billy Bob's ISP requiring all users to have a firewall, at least offer a free software firewall like Zone Alarm on their ISP install disks. I also don't see why something like that is pre-installed on any computer with a modem.
Maybe something could be done on both ends. While regulation or education won't be a solid solution (more spammers are born daily, just as new internet users are), it'd be a start. Maybe I just dream too much!
- Thread starter
- #52
Something is being done.
Spammer sentenced: Yahoo joins the war on spyware: Police hones skills to combat cyber-criminals: MS and ISPs gang up on spammers: US states target spammers:
Spammer sentenced: Yahoo joins the war on spyware: Police hones skills to combat cyber-criminals: MS and ISPs gang up on spammers: US states target spammers:
-
1
- Moderator
- #53
Well, here I go again, throwing in a nickel instead of my normal $.02.
The "Can Spam" thing that was just passed, about having "EXPLICIT MATERIAL" or whatever on porn spam hasn't done anything. I'm still getting them.
And, for that matter, I look in my mail logs, and I see page after page of some spammer looking for valid e-mail addresses. They must have a dictionary of names... I see aardvark@mydomain.com aardwolf@mydomain.com apple@mydomain.com Yes, they're being bounced as undeliverable, but someone is just bouncing a constant stream against my server.
Remember that the first amendment is fine, AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T IMPEDE ON SOMEONE ELSE'S RIGHTS.
If I walk into a magazine shop, the porn is either in another room, CLEARLY MARKED, or there's wrappers over the magazine. Porn spam, to me, is essentially taking those magazines and sticking them in the front window with no covers. On main street. Next to a school.
I have *never* signed up to receive porn in my e-mail.
I've stated it before, and I shall again, the only way to COMPLETELY STOP SPAM is not with laws, it's obvious that the spammers aren't paying any attention. How do you track them down anyway? It's a pain when a spam has been bounced off an open relay, with a spoofed name (I get them from non-existant people on my own domain!)... then, who am I going to prosecute? They've cost me $.005 cent worth of electricity. Hardly able to take them to court on that.
Anyway, as I was saying, the only way to STOP SPAM is to make it UNPROFITABLE. The reality is, everybody complains about it, but PEOPLE STILL CLICK ON IT.
We need an increase in public awareness... don't click on ANY spam. Make it not worth the effort and potential legal risk, and it will go away.
Just my $.02
"In order to start solving a problem, one must first identify it's owner." --Me
--Greg
The "Can Spam" thing that was just passed, about having "EXPLICIT MATERIAL" or whatever on porn spam hasn't done anything. I'm still getting them.
And, for that matter, I look in my mail logs, and I see page after page of some spammer looking for valid e-mail addresses. They must have a dictionary of names... I see aardvark@mydomain.com aardwolf@mydomain.com apple@mydomain.com Yes, they're being bounced as undeliverable, but someone is just bouncing a constant stream against my server.
Remember that the first amendment is fine, AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T IMPEDE ON SOMEONE ELSE'S RIGHTS.
If I walk into a magazine shop, the porn is either in another room, CLEARLY MARKED, or there's wrappers over the magazine. Porn spam, to me, is essentially taking those magazines and sticking them in the front window with no covers. On main street. Next to a school.
I have *never* signed up to receive porn in my e-mail.
I've stated it before, and I shall again, the only way to COMPLETELY STOP SPAM is not with laws, it's obvious that the spammers aren't paying any attention. How do you track them down anyway? It's a pain when a spam has been bounced off an open relay, with a spoofed name (I get them from non-existant people on my own domain!)... then, who am I going to prosecute? They've cost me $.005 cent worth of electricity. Hardly able to take them to court on that.
Anyway, as I was saying, the only way to STOP SPAM is to make it UNPROFITABLE. The reality is, everybody complains about it, but PEOPLE STILL CLICK ON IT.
We need an increase in public awareness... don't click on ANY spam. Make it not worth the effort and potential legal risk, and it will go away.
Just my $.02
"In order to start solving a problem, one must first identify it's owner." --Me
--Greg
SemperFiDownUnda
Instructor
I agree ... there needs to be more then just laws.
I've said over and over agian education is a good thing but we can't depend on just education. My rape analogy might not hit square with some but to me it isn't all that different when people say "She shouldn't have been walking in the park at night alone" or "She shouldn't have been wearing those cloths" or "She shouldn't have gone for a drive with him".
Laws alone will never have that great of an impact. We need to back up those laws with investigation and prosecution and we need to educate the public.
Firewalls aren't the solution....I'm sorry but if you get a person stupid enough to click on the links how much more do you think it will take to get them to download a program and install it on their system? I run smoothwall on my home network. I know that the email notification portion of the application I'm writing for the hospital isn't at all effected by the firewall....it would take me about 30-45 minutes to write an email spam program that
1) wouldn't be picked up by any virus protection software
and
2) wouldn't be effected by any home firewall.
Do we then target the publicly open email servers that these spoofs use to send the email?
As far as not knowing who to charge....spam is advertisement for a company. If a large amount of spam is generated for a company then investigate that company. While the actual source of the email might be hard to track down from the end point if you target the company and work back it wouldn't be that hard to prove where the spam comes from. Joe Bloggs with 87 phone lines into his residence recieving payments from 382 porn and mail order drug companies shouldn't be to hard to track down.
Hope I've been helpful,
Wayne Francis
If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first
I've said over and over agian education is a good thing but we can't depend on just education. My rape analogy might not hit square with some but to me it isn't all that different when people say "She shouldn't have been walking in the park at night alone" or "She shouldn't have been wearing those cloths" or "She shouldn't have gone for a drive with him".
Laws alone will never have that great of an impact. We need to back up those laws with investigation and prosecution and we need to educate the public.
Firewalls aren't the solution....I'm sorry but if you get a person stupid enough to click on the links how much more do you think it will take to get them to download a program and install it on their system? I run smoothwall on my home network. I know that the email notification portion of the application I'm writing for the hospital isn't at all effected by the firewall....it would take me about 30-45 minutes to write an email spam program that
1) wouldn't be picked up by any virus protection software
and
2) wouldn't be effected by any home firewall.
Do we then target the publicly open email servers that these spoofs use to send the email?
As far as not knowing who to charge....spam is advertisement for a company. If a large amount of spam is generated for a company then investigate that company. While the actual source of the email might be hard to track down from the end point if you target the company and work back it wouldn't be that hard to prove where the spam comes from. Joe Bloggs with 87 phone lines into his residence recieving payments from 382 porn and mail order drug companies shouldn't be to hard to track down.
Hope I've been helpful,
Wayne Francis
If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first
- Thread starter
- #55
- Moderator
- #56
Wayne:
You make some great points, and I always enjoy reading your posts. It's not quite that simple though.
According to an article on MSNBC, which I enjoyed reading a lot, actually, there's a few things going on.
First of all, there are people who purposely set up open-relays to deliver spam then take them back down. For that matter, <sarcastic ad>For only $89 you can send Millions of e-mails right from your home computer!</sarcastic ad> Don't even need a relay, all you need is $89 and a broadband connection.
Here's a scenario. Let's look at the m ort gage spams that show up:
Someone sends out 5 million mo rtg age spams. Let's say that 1/2 of 1% actually click on them. There's 25,000 leads. Out of those 25,000 leads, lets say out of those 25,000 leads, 1% qualify for a mortgage. That's 250 people.
Mortgage companies, such as Ivy Mortgage and others (you'd be surprised at who pays for lead generation) pay $100 for a qualified mortgage lead.
That's $25,000 for sending out 5 million spams. Not a bad couple of days' work in my book. And that's for a .0005% return.
The only way to stop spam is to EDUCATE PEOPLE not to CLICK IT.
Just my $.02
"In order to start solving a problem, one must first identify it's owner." --Me
--Greg
You make some great points, and I always enjoy reading your posts. It's not quite that simple though.
According to an article on MSNBC, which I enjoyed reading a lot, actually, there's a few things going on.
First of all, there are people who purposely set up open-relays to deliver spam then take them back down. For that matter, <sarcastic ad>For only $89 you can send Millions of e-mails right from your home computer!</sarcastic ad> Don't even need a relay, all you need is $89 and a broadband connection.
Here's a scenario. Let's look at the m ort gage spams that show up:
Someone sends out 5 million mo rtg age spams. Let's say that 1/2 of 1% actually click on them. There's 25,000 leads. Out of those 25,000 leads, lets say out of those 25,000 leads, 1% qualify for a mortgage. That's 250 people.
Mortgage companies, such as Ivy Mortgage and others (you'd be surprised at who pays for lead generation) pay $100 for a qualified mortgage lead.
That's $25,000 for sending out 5 million spams. Not a bad couple of days' work in my book. And that's for a .0005% return.
The only way to stop spam is to EDUCATE PEOPLE not to CLICK IT.
Just my $.02
"In order to start solving a problem, one must first identify it's owner." --Me
--Greg
There are things called "joe jobs" where a company is targeted in the spam (not sponsoring the spam). In these cases, do you call them and complain about the content of the spam? What can they do? I receive spam with my own domain listed in the spam. Do I complain to myself?
There are also many many software spams floating around, promising LOW LOW PRICES on any software you want. Do you complain to Adobe? Microsoft? Corel?
It all goes back to the spammy server with the open relay, or Joe Spammy sitting on his offshore ISP that doesn't want to deal with spam complaints. Open servers are targeted on the numerous blacklists available to the general public and to mail administrators. There are spam filters that check against those blacklists or use bayesian filters (looking for specific words in a spam).
It's a two way street. Everyone needs to do something about it instead of sitting and watching passively. People need to learn to not click on spam and to quit trying to unsubscribe. Law enforcement authorities need to learn technology to track down the worst of the worst like the Buffalo Spammer or anyone listed on spamhaus. Reporting spam is a start. There are actually a few honest ISP's that kick spammer's off their systems after receiving reports of spam.
There's no single solution. There's no way to claim that there is.
There are also many many software spams floating around, promising LOW LOW PRICES on any software you want. Do you complain to Adobe? Microsoft? Corel?
It all goes back to the spammy server with the open relay, or Joe Spammy sitting on his offshore ISP that doesn't want to deal with spam complaints. Open servers are targeted on the numerous blacklists available to the general public and to mail administrators. There are spam filters that check against those blacklists or use bayesian filters (looking for specific words in a spam).
It's a two way street. Everyone needs to do something about it instead of sitting and watching passively. People need to learn to not click on spam and to quit trying to unsubscribe. Law enforcement authorities need to learn technology to track down the worst of the worst like the Buffalo Spammer or anyone listed on spamhaus. Reporting spam is a start. There are actually a few honest ISP's that kick spammer's off their systems after receiving reports of spam.
There's no single solution. There's no way to claim that there is.
-
1
- #58
Someone's trying to sell you that software, that's who you go after because that's who paid the spammer. SemperFiDownUnda's right, Spammers are not doing this for fun, they're doing it because they get paid to. And chances are, whoever is trying to sell you something in the Spam is who paid the Spammer to send it. If you can stop companies from paying Spammers, the Spam will stop.Dollie said:
Exactly!Dimandja said:
Hope This Helps!
Ecobb
"My work is a game, a very serious game." - M.C. Escher
I think the point I was trying to make was missed. I could post dozens of examples of spam that are not coming from Microsoft, Corel and Adobe. These spams sell OEM or pirated versions of the software. They are not endorsed by the original author and/or original distributor of the software.
I would think that instead of all of us going after MS, Corel and Adobe, the affected companies (and the many others included in the spams) would want to go after the pirates. The affected companies are not endorsing the pirated versions, they want to eliminate them.
Completely eliminating spam is like eliminating junk mail. That hasn't happened in the entire history of the postal service, and they've been around a lot longer than e-mail has.
I would think that instead of all of us going after MS, Corel and Adobe, the affected companies (and the many others included in the spams) would want to go after the pirates. The affected companies are not endorsing the pirated versions, they want to eliminate them.
Completely eliminating spam is like eliminating junk mail. That hasn't happened in the entire history of the postal service, and they've been around a lot longer than e-mail has.
I think you missed our point as well, Dollie. No one is saying go after MS, Corel and Adobe, we're saying go after the jerk who paid the spammer to send out the email promising LOW LOW PRICES on any software you want. It's obvious that the software manufacturer didn't (and wouldn't) send out these emails, and they're not legitimate. But someone, somewhere, with an illegal software pirating scam, has paid a spammer to send the emails out. That's who we were talking about go after.
The drawback to this is, Company A could pay a spammer to promote Company B's product, and Company B would get in trouble.
Hope This Helps!
Ecobb
"My work is a game, a very serious game." - M.C. Escher
The drawback to this is, Company A could pay a spammer to promote Company B's product, and Company B would get in trouble.
Hope This Helps!
Ecobb
"My work is a game, a very serious game." - M.C. Escher
- Status
Similar threads