CyberPeasant writes:
> It works best with large ISPs that are against spam. Even though it
> sucks in general, AOL has been fairly good about whacking spammers lately.
> But, alas, as soon as such a spammer is canceled, he just starts again
> on a free account. (Or a stolen one... spammers accumulate credit card
If we had ubiquitous proof of identity, and people would get their accounts
only if they don't have a spam history [just daydreaming] this wouldn't
happen (heck, simply limiting their outgoing mail traffic if they are
a homo novus would suffice). Another solution is to charge each mail
with microcash payments (say, $1-5). If you consider the mail a spam,
you don't return the payment. Of course if you have a large legitimate
mailing, you'd need lots of cash in advance. Otoh, if the target
audience knows you and trusts you, and you use authentication the cash would be
returned instanteously, automatically.
> numbers from their spamming activity, and it is nothing to them to
> use the number to start another AOL, MSN, ... , account). A spammer
> only needs the account for a day.
Right, they are the scum of the earth.
> [...]
> There's a problem here: many spammers spam from dynamic account.
> they do the dirty, then logoff... you send a teardrop or whatever,
> and you whack some innocent dude who's checking his email. As far
> as that guy is concerned, you're just another NetCriminal.
I'm sorry to hit the innocents, however I think the benefits outweigh
the occasional gotchas. If only more ISPs would support finger...
> A spammer's website (porn spam, some other), however, is a 'fixed
> target.' I can understand how people could get very angry at such
> a site, although I don't recommend any specific action.
If one was to write an easy-to-use free Java package, spraying such a
target with random packets or bogus http requests, and only 10% of
spam victims would use it, the site would be flooded and become
nonfunctional. Neighbouring ISPs would cut off the offender asap since
they'd also suffer from the drawn fire.
> > - I have a very strong wish of starting exploiting the achilles heel
> > of spammers: their physical contact address. A global network of
> > spambusters could do a lot in legal, and/or in physical space. I'm not
> > balking at advocating physical violence.
>
[...]
> How can you track this dude down? He even had a phony-looking name,
> "Bob Franklin".
>
> this particular spammer smelled to me like he was being used by
> organized criminals (Mafia/narcotics traffickers) to launder money
> through phony loans. Mess with these types, and you find yourself
> in the hospital or in a river somewhere.
If you don't make a personal appeareance, they'll never know what had
hit them. Use your imagination and modern technology to deliver a
physical nastygram (caveat: of course, do this only if you are 100% sure to
have your ass armorplated -- you might wind up in jail, or in the
abovementioned river otherwise).
> A successful spammer has the money to use an account only once,
> and abandon it. Others hijack legitimate sites, use them, (kinda
> like a warez site), then move on when they're done.
Maybe these sites should use Linux with the latest pateches...
> I sometimes suspect that certain spammers (porners) are able to
> hack routes to their sites without an ISP's knowledge.
Alas, in the survival of the fittest, only the smartest prevail. The
most active spammers are the most technology-savvy.
> There are, unfortunately, damn few laws against spamming. Since most
> of the spammers (nearly all) are Americans, this is our problem.
Take care what you ask for, your wish may be granted. I think
regulation is intrinsically stifling, and we should try to keep out
the lawniks out of the Internet, relying on self-regulating forces of
the marketplace.
> Our politicians, alas, are capable of being paid off or otherwise
> "educated" to view spam as a business, a part of "internet commerce".
> Advertising is a sacred cow in the US, and is everywhere. Spam
> is not seen as "theft of service", even though it is. It is seen,
> instead, as the same as paper-mail advertising. So legal methods
> are not usually possible. There is no spam police, anyway, so
If the legal way does not work, then why not turning to other
possibilities?
> legal action has to proceed through "civil courts", with expensive
> lawyers. The only action you can get against the spammer is a
> cash judgement, or maybe an order to cease spamming, which the spammer
> will ignore.
>
> The "Blackhole" method (www.vixie.com, I believe) offers some relief
> from some of the worst spammers, mostly by threatening the large
> ISP's that shelter them and allow relaying. No surprise, msn was
1) make spam traceable
2) give each victim free tools to retaliate
That should be sufficient.
> in the blackhole for a while. Netcom and UUnet (18% owned by M$)
> have been there, too. Geocities (didn't M$ buy part of that?) is
> a recent 'blackhole' cite.
>
> The best thing is to keep complaining to relay sites. there's no
> reason for them to exist, it costs them nothing to fix. Many of these
> sites /refuse/ to close their relays, since they are jerks, and
> often spam-friendly. (They are "businessmen" in the evil sense of
> the word -- they will do anything for quick money.)
Yes.
> the main problem with laws against spam is that it seems difficult
> to design a law that could definitely pin a spammer to the wall,
> and not step all over everyone else's privacy. Spam may be a price
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Tanstaafl.
> to be paid, to keep the governments of the world out of net-law.
Just now, the future looks distinctly better. Do not call for the
minions of the law lightheartedly, it is basically impossible to oust
them.
> Dave
ciao,
'gene
