Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

In Pursuit Of A Spammer

Posted by timothy on Sun Jul 13, 2003 08:04 PM
from the come-the-revolution dept.
Kyle writes "Over at DSL Reports, We are currently pursuing a spammer from the West Palm Beach, Florida area. This wouldn't normally be news, but we think Slashdot readers may be interested in just how successful we have been. What's more interesting is that the spammer appears to be posting in the thread."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Jeremiah Cornelius (137) on Sunday July 13 2003, @08:06PM (#6430957) Homepage Journal
    If I bring you back his ears?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 13 2003, @08:07PM (#6430964)
    It turns out, after I caught a spammer, I wasn't allowed to kill him. Apparently, that's not classified as justifiable homicide. You know how silly I feel now?
    • by fidget42 (538823) on Sunday July 13 2003, @08:51PM (#6431183)
      You need a license. Duck season, wabbit season, spammer season...
    • by sllim (95682) <{ten.knilhtrae} {ta} {ecnahca}> on Sunday July 13 2003, @09:53PM (#6431444)
      However if he posses a risk to life or limb you have a case.
      That is why whenever you see a spammer you need to shout (so you can be heard clearly)
      "He's Coming Right For Us!"

      I recommend a bazooka. More bang for the buck.
        • by RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) <taiki.cox@net> on Monday July 14 2003, @12:51AM (#6432186)
          Let's pick this one apart piece by piece.

          And spam, like junk mail, is protected by the constitution. So although it may be a great inconvenience, the First Amendment will never fall to inconvenience.

          I don't think so. Only because unsolicited faxes, soliciting in public and business areas and other solicitation laws are in effect.

          Also, anti-spam laws tend to hurt small businesses far more than established companies.


          Yeah, usually Spammer businesses. It's like saying, "But banning small and cute rodent killing will hurt small rabbit killing businesses!"
        • by McDutchie (151611) on Monday July 14 2003, @04:24AM (#6432722) Homepage
          Legislation may not be the answer to stopping spam. More than 30 states have anti-spam laws already, to no effect.
          Good point. If only you had stopped right there.
          And spam, like junk mail, is protected by the constitution.
          ::buzzz:: WRONG!! Thanks for playing, please try again. Spam is behavior, not speech. You are free to say anything you want, you are not free to shove it down my private inbox unsolicited.
          [...]

          Also, anti-spam laws tend to hurt small businesses far more than established companies.
          Yes, justice is indeed for sale, but we knew that.

          Hey, two out of three ain't that bad, for a spam apologist.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 13 2003, @08:10PM (#6430978)
    "We are currently pursuing a spammer from the West Palm Beach, Florida area."

    Will be see this on Fox?
  • by dmeranda (120061) on Sunday July 13 2003, @08:14PM (#6431002) Homepage
    We are currently pursuing a spammer from the West Palm Beach, Florida area. This wouldn't normally be news,...

    Pursuit of fleeing vehicles is much more common in LA, but the West Palm Beach folks are very fond of pursuing rental trucks full of votes to be recounted. So now they are just chasing a truck load of canned pork, doesn't really surprise me much.

    • by 56ker (566853) on Sunday July 13 2003, @08:44PM (#6431152) Homepage Journal
      I'm sure someone's writing a blockbusting film using this plot as we speak. ;o)

      A West Palm Beach county resident - annoyed that his vote for Gore in the presidential election wasn't counted - decided to get back at the world by being the most notorious, infamous spammer in West Palm Beach county....... pursued by people all over the world.....
  • by NeoSkandranon (515696) on Sunday July 13 2003, @08:15PM (#6431008)
    We've found a spammer, may we burn him?
    • by Jardine (398197) on Sunday July 13 2003, @08:30PM (#6431094) Homepage
      Only if he weighs the same as a wooden duck.
    • by greg987123 (677841) on Sunday July 13 2003, @09:27PM (#6431324)
      DSL REPORTS:
      Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether he is a spammer.
      SLASHDOTTER #1: Are there?
      SLASHDOTTER #2: Ah?
      SLASHDOTTER #1: What are they?
      CROWD: Tell us! Tell us!...
      DSL REPORTS: Tell me. What do you do with spammers?
      SLASHDOTTER #2: Burn!
      SLASHDOTTER #1: Burn!
      CROWD: Burn! Burn them up! Burn!...
      DSL REPORTS : And what do you burn apart from spammers?
      SLASHDOTTER #1: More spammers!
      SLASHDOTTER #3: Shh!
      SLASHDOTTER #2: Wood!
      DSL REPORTS : So, why are spammers caught?
      [pause]
      SLASHDOTTER #3: B--... 'cause they send... unwanted email?
      DSL REPORTS : Good! Heh heh.
      CROWD: Oh, yeah. Oh.
      DSL REPORTS : So, how do we tell whether he sends unwanted email?
      SLASHDOTTER #1:
      Run him thorugh a Bayesian filter.
      DSL REPORTS : Ah, but can you not also catch valid email in a Bayesian filter?
      SLASHDOTTER #1: Oh, yeah.
      TROLL:
      Oh, yeah. True. Uhh...
      DSL REPORTS :
      Does spam sink in water?
      SLASHDOTTER #1: No. No.
      SLASHDOTTER #2: No, it floats! It floats!
      SLASHDOTTER #1:
      Throw the email into the pond!
      CROWD:
      The pond! Throw it into the pond!
      DSL REPORTS : What also floats in water?
      SLASHDOTTER #1: Bread!
      SLASHDOTTER #2: Apples!
      SLASHDOTTER #3: Uh, very small rocks!
      SLASHDOTTER #1:
      Cider!
      SLASHDOTTER #2: Uh, gra-- gravy!
      SLASHDOTTER #1: Cherries!
      SLASHDOTTER #2: Mud!
      SLASHDOTTER #3: Uh, churches! Churches!
      SLASHDOTTER #2: Lead! Lead!
      CMDR TACO: A duck!
      CROWD: Oooh.
      DSL REPORTS : Exactly. So, logically...
      SLASHDOTTER #1:
      If... it... weighs... the same as a duck,... it's made of spam.
      DSL REPORTS : And therefore?
      SLASHDOTTER #2: A spammer!
  • cool (Score:5, Interesting)

    by squarefish (561836) * on Sunday July 13 2003, @08:16PM (#6431014)
    he has an email newsletter. Let's all sign [chaddeckard.com] up!
    • Re:cool (Score:5, Funny)

      by Mostly a lurker (634878) on Sunday July 13 2003, @09:46PM (#6431401)
      who is Chad Deckard?

      Chad is also a business savant who has studied and solved every kind of business question, problem, and challenge that has encroached him over his business career.

      It will be interesting to see how well he copes with this problem.

    • Re:cool (Score:5, Funny)

      by Malicious (567158) on Sunday July 13 2003, @11:39PM (#6431932)
      I signed up 30 Times!
      Root@127.0.0.1
      Admin@127.0.0.1
      Chad@127.0.0.1
      Etc..etc..etc.....
  • by BabyDave (575083) on Sunday July 13 2003, @08:18PM (#6431029)

    ... who's got a mental picture involving a Benny Hill style chase sequence?

  • by zpiderz (646360) on Sunday July 13 2003, @08:21PM (#6431038)
    This person spammed a forum which is wrong, but what do they really expect to happen this company? Do they want their domain revoked, a reprimand, a fine? Do they have proof that they spam on a massive scale or send massive bulk e-mails. It's one thing to send 1,000 e-mails a day and another to post an ad in a forum (on the same subject for that matter).
  • Besides... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BJZQ8 (644168) on Sunday July 13 2003, @08:25PM (#6431061) Homepage Journal
    Besides annoying the spammer in question, is there REALLY anything they can legally do to him? I doubt it. I have fought with spammers before, trying to get taken off of their lists, and they threatened ME with telling my ISP (a college at that time) that I was harassing HIM. I believe he would have done it, too. So I resigned myself to deleting hundreds of spams per week, and getting used to it. I can't wait until they make RIAA-style computer-nuking legal...we can all just start a computerized World War III.
  • Awesome!! (Score:5, Funny)

    by someonehasmyname (465543) on Sunday July 13 2003, @08:40PM (#6431137)
    I live in West Palm Beach! I might try bribing his garbage man to dump a truckload of junk in his yard.
  • by BillYak (119143) on Sunday July 13 2003, @08:41PM (#6431142) Homepage
    All they have done so far is make a lot of links from one site/organization to another. There has been no action against the spammer. They are not certain of his real name nor his address. I think its great that they're tracking him down, but I would not go so far as to say they have been successful.
  • by fugu13 (597296) on Sunday July 13 2003, @08:52PM (#6431188)
    Notably, the most fervent researcher on the forum (Ameritec Tech) has discovered that the spammer was violating several people's copyrights. One of those people has replied and stated they are taking legal action against the spammer immediately for the violation.
  • by curtlewis (662976) on Sunday July 13 2003, @09:21PM (#6431301)
    So if the spammer weighs as much as a duck....

    then he's made of wood?

    and therefore?

    A WITCH!

    BURN HIM! BURN HIM!
  • by linuxislandsucks (461335) on Sunday July 13 2003, @09:36PM (#6431352) Homepage Journal
    THe best revenge is a weblog post with his own info being higher in ranking than his own website :)

    I should know I killed a spammer called Bruce Cullen(a movie extra-Outbreak one of the invefected victims that died in the movie) with this technique..

    It was so bad that he stopped spamming altogether..:)

  • by MisterMook (634297) on Sunday July 13 2003, @11:02PM (#6431744) Homepage
    I think we should just do a Slashdot story linking to Spammer websites every couple of days, the DoS attack should be brutal.
  • by Jboy_24 (88864) on Sunday July 13 2003, @11:35PM (#6431909) Homepage
    Please tell me the "SPAMMER" did more then post 2 messages in an forum which actually shares the same topic as his posts?

    Or is it just enough that someone labeled him a "Spammer" that we have to "dump garbage on his lawn"?

    Was it just an AD? IF this really was only about 2 posts in a FORUM, not emails, not anything else, something that the forum moderator could delete if requested, then this actually makes me sick.

  • I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AtariDatacenter (31657) on Sunday July 13 2003, @11:50PM (#6431971) Homepage
    I mean, I dislike spammers just as much as the next guy. But why is this a newsworthy story? Allegedly, someone posts a message about their anti-spam product on an anti-spamming message board. The claim is made that the poster is a spammer. So the story becomes that a spammer posts an advert to an anti-spamming message board.

    Aside from it being a bit uncooth, why is this suddenly The Hunt for Red October? Sure, it was kind of a stupid thing, but what's the big wreck that I should be rubbernecking over?
    • And I've said it before, you're free to do what you wish so long as it doesn't impact on me or my freedoms.
      Spam costs me money. Every time I open an email I don't want, every time I have to update my anti-spam software (well, that's free but that's besides the point) it costs me time and money and I object. It's fine if I've signed up for a newsletter or advertising (yes, I've done that - Think Geek sends me notification of stuff even though I'm a dirty foreigner and can't buy any of it) but when I haven't it's costing me. Where can I send the invoice? To you?
    • t's their right to send it and it's your right to block it.

      Sorry, that theory fails when fraud comes into the equation. Rule #1: Spammers LIE.
      Lying, in this context (trying to steal your service), is fraud.

      -jcr
    • by ejaw5 (570071) on Sunday July 13 2003, @08:23PM (#6431049)
      What really bothers me about spam is that they have to be so cowardly about it and spoof source email addresses like kajfaiojiu@iouem.com. I wouldn't mind it if they were honest about where they're sending SPAM from, then I can easily excercise my right to block it.
    • Bill,

      It's unfortunate that your comments were modded down to -1. Given the opportunity, I would have modded your statements Interesting even though I disagree with you.

      It's their right to send it and it's your right to block it.

      This really drills down to the core issue of spam: money. Based upon what I've read on the subject, I (via my subscription fee) am subsidizing the cost of a spammer's business. I welcome any evidence that contradicts this, but until that time I would analogize your statement as follows: "It is their right to barge into your home and shove an ad in your face and it's your right to stop them....and by the way, this process will cost you $$."

      That kind of thinking doesn't work because I can't legally put a bullet into a spammer's head. One's right to free speech ends at my doorstep. Any alternative interpretation of the First Amendment opens up a number of conflicts with the Fourth Amendment.

      --K.
    • by JamieF (16832) on Sunday July 13 2003, @10:57PM (#6431724) Homepage
      Cool! Can I come to your house and exercise my right to kick you in the nuts? Of course, you have the right to block it.

      How do you feel about the hundreds of internet worms and script kiddies and failed spam relay attempts that are interfering with the bandwidth you pay for? Is that OK too? Mind if I run an extension cord to the outlet on your patio so I don't have to pay for my own electricity? Of course, you have to right to unplug it, but I'll just come back tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day. And I'll tunnel under your house and tap into the wiring in your basement where you don't see. But you have the right to spend every waking hour trying to stop me from leeching off the stuff you pay for. I hope you don't waste too much time fighting me, though... I need you to go to work and earn money to pay for the stuff that I'm stealing from you, so that I don't have to go to work myself and earn an honest living. Wow, I love your attitude! Maybe I can hook myself up to your water and gas lines, too.

      There's cyber-libertarianism, and then there's advocating total lawlessness. When everybody has a "right" to do whatever they want to anybody, that's the same as nobody having any rights at all.
      • Not to nit pick,but...

        Most big time spammers go right around the "TOS" by becoming an ISP themselves. All you have to do is buy a block of IP's from someone who has them up for sale. Believe me there are plenty of people who will sell you a /20 for a $4000 to $10,000, because they are going out of business.

        Next all you need to do is find a bandwidth provider and you're in business. Most bandwidth providers don't care what you do with your bandwidth as long as it's not illegal. And there isn't a lot of solid case law that spam is illegal. (I know we're all hoping for legislation to come through, but not yet...)

        And there you go, no "Terms of Service" to break.

        I hate spammers as much as the rest of you, but I really hate zeolots who have no idea how the business even works. The more you know about spammers the easier it will be to combat them.

        Maybe I'm just jaded because most of my day is spent blocking this low-lifes.
    • Re:Good job! (Score:4, Informative)

      by stevenbdjr (539653) <steven@mrchuckles.net> on Sunday July 13 2003, @08:31PM (#6431099) Homepage
      DSL / Broadband reports is not a DSL provider. They are a website devoted to issues surrounding broadband Internet access. While I fail to see any real useful information in the post (or the thread), I also fail to see how this is advertisting. Their site doesn't even contain ads.
      • Re:What??? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by clifyt (11768) <sonikmatter.gmail@com> on Sunday July 13 2003, @09:06PM (#6431236) Homepage
        Yes, but free speech is also somewhat limited. For instance, commercial speech can be regulated. Spam for the most part is commercial speech and thus should be put under the same regulations as any other advertisment.

        That and freedom of speech is not something that is regulated by the gov't in someone elses home. It is limited to public properties. On private properties, you still have what ever limits of the freedom of speech that apply as well as those of the folks that regulate the private area.

        By these two limits, email can and should be regulated. Much the same way one can place a .Robots file on their website or subscribe to a DoNotCall List, email is an invitation to ones home and the decision to allow it into your home should be yours to make and the gov't should be able to help one regulate this. If you are paying for something and others are invading its sancitity, you should be able to ask the gov't to help you out. If folks are not willing to respect this privacy before you have to say back off, the gov't should give you the ability to tell these guys to fuck off before they even get there.

        Again, freedom of speech is not an unlimited freedom. I'm sick of folks that think if it. If Taco wanted to edit my posts here on his site, its NOT infringing against my freedom of speech to do so...at least from a constitutional stand point.

        blah

      • Re:What??? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by schon (31600) on Sunday July 13 2003, @09:07PM (#6431237) Homepage
        The First Amendment has been interpreted by the US courts to me the protection of personal expression. .. E-mail could be considered to be therefore protected.

        While the text of an email can be considered "speech", it's irrelevant - it can still (and should) be regulated, as the first amendment only guarantees that you have the right to speech, it doesn't guarantee that you have the right to any and every method of expressing that speech - especially when it's the receiver, or some other third party, which is paying for it.

        Think about it - should you be able to walk into a TV station and demand to be given airtime to talk about your "100% natural penis enhancment" product? Of course not! Why should email be any different?

        The first amendment gives you the right to say what you want. It does NOT guarantee you the right to force people to listen, nor the right to force someone else to pay for your speech.
    • Re:9 pages? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 13 2003, @09:29PM (#6431327)
      Someone sent a couple of spam messages to a forum. Apparently they picked the wrong forum because now the whole rat-pack is trying to track down the sender.

      Using google, who-is databases, other directories, some luck and some pluck they have unearthed all details of that guy (Name, address, phone number, company he works for, color of his underwear and so on).

      Being a rather slow day on Slashdot, it makes it as one of the stories of the day.
    • Re:9 pages? (Score:5, Informative)

      by peter_gzowski (465076) on Monday July 14 2003, @02:51AM (#6432494) Homepage
      Summary:

      Dslreports maintains an anti-spam forum, which discusses spam-fighting techniques. A recently registered user, AntiSpamCard, posts to the forum advertising its spam-fighting product, AntiSpamCard. This violates the rules of the forum, so another user, AmeritechTech, looks up the domain registration information (registration service: RegistryFly.com). It is full of false information (mostly na, na, na filled in everywhere). AntiSpamCard claims that false info is RegistryFly's fault. Further investigation leads AmeritechTech to believe AntiSpamCard are, in fact, spammers. The evidence:

      - Privacy statement on antispamcard.com states that they have an opt-out policy on receiving info
      - Domain listed as unwelcome here [rhyolite.com] and here [dolphinwave.org]

      From these sites, AmeritechTech discovers that antispamcard.com and putamericatowork.com are both owned by Brad Heckman in Palm Beach, FL. IP address for antispamcard.com seems to be within a block assigned to Crescive, Inc. (not to be confused with some car company), which is also mentioned on antispamcard.com. The host for this block of IPs is traci.net. Traci.net has a strict anti-spam policy. Name servers also appear to be owned by Brad, and hosted by traci.net. Registration of the domain names of the name servers also has na, na, na filled into most fields. Putamericatowork.com turns out to be hosted by aitcom.net, which has a very strict anti-spam policy. AmeritechTech also claims Brad owns spaminsurance.com, but I'm not sure why. IP in the same block (which it is) and identical layouts (can't check, antispamcard.com /.'ed), I think.

      After various emails to the various hosting companies, antispamcard.com and spaminsurance.com magically have valid registration information. AmeritechTech also gets an email from Brad from igpbrad@hotmail.com (remember that email) saying the registration info is updated. Antispamcard.com registered to Brad, spaminsurance.com registered to Chad Deckard. Same guy? Associates? Who knows, but there seems to be a link (in later posts, this is contested by "mystery poster" Ry2k, but the link seems pretty strong). Hunting around for Chad Deckard stuff turns up claims on this [zeropaid.com] board that he's associated with a scam to sell Kazaa "Gold", which is really just Kazaa Lite, but with a 9.95 price tag, plus it harvests your email. The site's still up, but I couldn't repeat the behaviour claimed by the message poster (posted back on Sept. 11, 2002) that takes you to infogeneratorpro.com, which seems to be the site registered to Chad. Also conspicuous is that Chad's name shows up on putamericatowork.com, a site owned by Brad (link [putamericatowork.com]). Also VERY conspicuous is that Brad emailed from igpbrad@hotmail.com, i.e. InfoGeneratorPro? Maybe a coincidence...

      Some more looking uncovers other domains in Chad's name: infogenerator.com, usub.net, and finder-network.com. This is along with spaminsurance.com and infogeneratorpro.com. About this time Ry2k shows up to claim that Kazaa Gold was just a client of Chad's, and when Chad found out what they were doing, the account was eliminated. Ry2k claims to be a former employee of Chad's, and warns the forum of tarnishing the good name of legitimate businesses in their persuit of spammers. I go to bullet mode, as it's getting late, and I'm tired:

      - Reverse look-ups on contact info for antispamcard.com produce a fax number registered to infogenerator.com.
      - Domain name servers (safeidentity.net) for antispamcard.com has contact info updated to Crescive, Inc.
      - Someone points out that RegisarFly.com may be shady, something about "using CNAME for their MX records". Maybe someone can fill me in...
      - google groups turns up complaints about spam from
    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 13 2003, @11:00PM (#6431736)
      1: It's a spammer that spammed. That's grounds for loss of a connection to the Internet, at the very least.

      2: It's an unrepentant spammer. That is grounds for permanent disconnection. Find out as much as possible about them and do what is necessary to insure that they are never able to connect to any ISP ever again. Unrepentant repeat criminals are removed from society, and unrepentant repeat spammers should be removed from the Internet.

      3: It's an unrepentant spammer sending spam about some kind of service to fight spam... I don't even know where to begin on that one.

      4: It's a story about how a slimeball spammer is being tracked down and is obviously nervous about it. It's a how-to. It's a recipe. It's inspirational. It is very much Stuff That Matters.

    • Re:Big Deal (Score:5, Insightful)

      by PaulK (85154) on Monday July 14 2003, @12:09AM (#6432040)
      At best this will result in a reduction of spam that's too small to measure.

      It only takes one snowflake to start an avalanche.

      Visualize this:

      One man decides he has had enough, and pursues this spammer with all the tools at his disposal, including posting an article on Slashdot. Now, consider that the vast majority of /.'rs have also had enough, and quite a few decide that this is a good method of pulling the bugs out from under the rocks.

      At this point, the grassroot movement starts, and the spammers start scrambling for other rocks. As momentum grows, the word about this methodology reaches more and more people, who likewise have had enough. Eventually, by starting with this one snowflake, spam can become an abberation, instead of the norm.

      So why should anybody care?

      Because there is hope, and apathy/acceptance gives them the victory. I'd rather take them out of the game, myself.