Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Spam Your Rights Online

Dutch Court: Bothered by SPAM? Get A New Email Address 60

Brenno de Winter writes: "The earlier mentioned ruling on XS4ALL has been analyzed by Linux Journal in this article. The ruling states that it's easy to change e-mail addresses, so don't worry about SPAM too much. Yeah right! RFC's don't apply to the Direct Marketeers since they were not involved in the standarization. Neither in our consitution, btw .."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dutch Court: Bothered by SPAM? Get A New Email Address

Comments Filter:
  • Are the drug dealers on your street harassing you?

    Don't fight, quit complaining, JUST MOVE OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
    • From the article, a better analogy:

      If You Don't Like the Way I Drive, Get Off the Sidewalk

      This is a more accurate representation of spammers' attitudes.

  • I hate spam (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Apreche ( 239272 ) on Tuesday July 23, 2002 @02:00PM (#3939071) Homepage Journal
    as much as the next guy. I mean when someone uses bots to collect tons of e-mail addresses and send them porn ads 100 times a day, its just not right. However, I don't get spam. No, I don't use a filtering program. No, I don't sue everyone who spams me. I'm just not careless with my e-mail address. I have a yahoo address I never check which I use on suspicious websites. Otherwise I just doublecheck to make sure when I fill out a form that I have all the checkboxes set to "don't send me crap".

    I'd be lying if I said I never got any spam. I got on piece of it a few weeks ago. Before that, I can't remember.

    Spammers are bad, but if your mailbox is full of it its more likely your carelesness with your e-mail address than it is spammers out to get you.
    • However, I don't get spam.
      <snip>
      I'd be lying if I said I never got any spam.


      OK...
    • Goody for you, but spam is still a problem for the many people whose addresses must be posted publicly for business or technical reasons -- the same ones the Dutch court apparently doesn't care about, since they also can't change their addresses easily.
    • Spammers are bad, but if your mailbox is full of it its more likely your carelesness with your e-mail address than it is spammers out to get you.


      And the best way to never get mugged is to be a ninja! Stalking the rooftops, blending in the background. Be invisible, be hidden, be stealthy!
    • I've had the same email address since Dec '95. I got my own domain late last year, and have moved everything over to my new email address, leaving nothing but spam being sent to the old one. I get between 40-60 emails a day in spam to my old address. My new email is spam free (knock-on-wood).

      I made some mistakes early on, I posted to a lot of newsgroups giving out my real email address. I used my one and only email everywhere, and got tons of spam in return. I tried to obfuscate my email on newsgroup postings, but once they had my address on a list, its on a list forever.

      One thing that isn't my fault, is that someone with the same first initial and last name as me got a dialup account at my isp, and she's been giving out my email as if it were hers. Since this happened I've been getting tons of spam, along with the odd delivery confirmation. I'll never forget when one of her friends sent her(me) a email with a 8 meg attachment (wasssup.exe). I was livid. I fired back a flame reply so fast I figured they'd learn their lesson, but it doesn't look like they did.

      I signed up for a yahoo address, and use that for questionable websites, untrusted places, spam-bait, and keep my real address for people I know.

    • Along the same logic: My car never got stolen. Not once. I always park on bright, accessible locations, near active streets. People who get their car stolen are guilty, 'cause they park in back-alleys near gangster groups.

      Only that my car stereo was stolen at 4PM on a busy street on a working day last week...

      Ask any sysadmin of a large email domain. You'll be surprised at the kind of attacks they see. And at the costs of bandwidth they pay because of spam. Bots aren't nearly the only way to send spam.

    • Huh?

      You said;
      "...but if your mailbox is full of it its more likely your carelesness [sic] with your e-mail address..."

      How on God's green earth can you be "careless" with an email address? Keep it secret and never tell a soul? Kinda limits the usefulness of it, now doesn't it.

      I take it you don't actually work anywhere that requires you actually USE your email address do you. My email address is prominently displayed on my business card, it is listed along with the rest of my contact information as part of my email sig. and I make sure all of my clients have it to contact me. Add to that the various venders, and other sales type people we actually purchase from and there are plenty of people who have my email address. I guess you would consider that being careless.

      Of course I could always change it, reprint my business cards, change my sig., and propagate my "new" email address to all of my clients and contacts. After spending large sums of time and money, guess what? I guess I'm being "careless" again. Silly me actually trying to get some USE out of my email address.

      New problem same as the Old problem, or to put it another way;
      "Get email address, use email address, get SPAM, rinse, lather, repeat."

      Uggg......

    • I agree!

      In fact, last year, I removed my email address from my BUSINESS CARDS!

      If someone wants to contact me, they can call my admin.

    • I started working at a new job a few months ago. New email address, never posted anywhere only used internally. I get spam. Only 3-4 a day, but I get it. My main email which I use all over the place (amazon, bn, deepdiscountdvd/cd, etc) get only a few more pieces a day. You're answer is not the solution, sorry.

    • I've got an old e-mail address never given out and never used. I checked it the out of curiosity. It has been SPAMMED!

      Even not using an e-mail address and keeping it secret doesn't work!

    • I'm just not careless with my e-mail address.

      This isn't much of an alternative after some AC has
      "outed" your supposedly spam-munged email address.

      Or, of course, if you must, as pointed out, actually seriously _use_ it for any reason.

      The address displayed above is to an alias the ISP owns. I've _never_ used it prior to sticking it on my slashdot postings (beginning last week), but I always got plenty of spam on it nevertheless. This to a semi-existant address I'd _never_ disclosed or used. So it's filtered. Anything arriving To:mikebat@getnet.com gets automagically diverted to an extra-special "spam" folder, where it receives "special" handling: i.e. my address is removed and it is posted on news.admin.net-abuse.sightings, where hopefully the Lumber Cartel (TINLC) will pick it up and consign the senders to rot in SPEWS.

      So GO AHEAD AND HARVEST THAT ADDRESS, SPAMMER SCUM, you've been warned.
  • by martin ( 1336 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `cesxam'> on Tuesday July 23, 2002 @02:05PM (#3939106) Journal
    yeah right.

    let me see I've on 12 mailing lists that I know of right now (plus others that mail less han one a month).

    Plus all those register sites(like /.) that mailmy my passwd etc when I forget...

    Not to mention all my 'internet' buddies that drop a line once a year or so, to check if I'm still alive...

    no it's not easy to change addr's for people that actually rely on email quite heavily like I do..

    Like virus's, put the solution where the problem is . For virus's it's the windows desktop so you need a solution there beside gateways etc. For spammers it's the 'sender'. There needs to be a body that has legal powers to track them down and prosecute - a UN agency for policing the internet perhaps?

    Right now I'm trapping approx 50% of all incoming email at work with my anti-spam tools. Now thats just a small company with 200 email addresses, God only knows the length and resoources the IBM's of this world must be apply to the problem.
    • Do not even joke about Internet police!

      You get spam, charge them for network use, ban them from your network, filter it, do whatever you have to, but do NOT make a governing body for the internet!

    • One solution to this problem is to get your domain name and create a secret "catch all" email account. Then use a different email address for EVERY web account or mailing list. For example, someone might use cmdrtaco-slashdot@slashdot.org for Slashdot, cmdrtaco-amazon@slashdot.org for Amazon orders, and cmdrtaco-anime@slashdot.org for an anime mailing list.

      If you later receive spam for penis enlargers at cmdrtaco-amazon@slashdot.org, then you know that Amazon sold your email address to the powerful penis-enlargement lobby [theonion.com]. You can then choose to stop using Amazon or choose a new Amazon email address, while creating an email rule to automatically kill email to your old cmdrtaco-amazon@slashdot.org email address.
  • by acceleriter ( 231439 ) on Tuesday July 23, 2002 @02:09PM (#3939136)
    Could someone please post the email addresses of the judge(s) responsible? I understand that there is a great untapped market among Dutch jurists for at-home college degrees and penis enlargment machines, and these would be helpful to mining that.
  • ChoiceMail (Score:3, Informative)

    by climber ( 53359 ) <slashdot@nosPam.doxsystems.com> on Tuesday July 23, 2002 @02:10PM (#3939141) Homepage
    Bob Mossberg reviewed ChoiceMail [digiportal.com] from DigiPortal [digiportal.com]in a recent column, and said his spam dropped to zero as a result of using the product. It's a permissions-based e-mail software package. I haven't tried it yet, but it looks interesting.
  • I'd rather waste my time trying to smart-up the crawling little obscenities that sent the SPAM in the first place, claiming (groundless) threats of filing a lawsuit, etc... Besides... how many of us can actually get a new address (other than Hotmail) on a whim? I know I can't... at least not until my linux mail server is running under the domain name I just purchased....
  • Legislation (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Cardhore ( 216574 ) on Tuesday July 23, 2002 @02:18PM (#3939209) Homepage Journal
    All (some of) you people sit here and moan and bitch about patent legislation, addendums to the copyright laws (like the DMCA), the FCC adding no-copy flags to TV broadcasts, and region coding. But when it comes to spam you all scream "Legislation!" "Put and end to spam!" "I can't take another spam e-mail!" "Spam isn't freedom of speech, it's abuse of network resources!" "I have to pay for this shit!" Many of you would be entirely happy to see spammers behind bars. Am I the only one who sees how hypocritical this bullshit is? Folks, there are technological solutions to this technological problem. Let's not sink down to the RIAA's level, please.
    • Ummm

      1) the DMCA prohibits otherwise perfectly legal use of certain products and increases the monopolistic powers of certain software companies, therefore contradicting the laws of that government itself.

      2) region coding prohibits fair use (although not a constitutional right, almost every country accepts "fair use" as a warrant system to protect comsumers)

      3) patents on software are contradictionary to what patents are for since copyright already covers software, and in most countries, you can (By law) only receive protection on one of these protective laws at the same time. Therefore software patents are misleading and possibly fraudulous, maybe even unconstitutional if you dig deep enough.

      Put spam in this list please! (oh, and stop using illegal software while you're at it, you might wanna try linux for your desktop, you know you may copy it for free?)

    • There are technological solutions to this technological problem.

      My problem is when spamsters use technological solutions to get around my solution. The most common example is using open relays. Another is adding garbage text onto the subject or body of the spam. Both of these constitute deception or fraud in my book.

      Me, I know right from wrong. Using tricks to avoid spam filters is wrong, region coding is wrong, and the DMCA is morally bankrupt. I'm not opposed to laws, just stupid laws that are designed to protect big business monopolies.

    • Re:Legislation (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Mawbid ( 3993 ) on Tuesday July 23, 2002 @03:41PM (#3939834)
      Most of what you're seeing is not really hypocrisy at all. First of all, the anti-legislation posts (on DMCA etc.) and the pro-legislation posts (on spam etc.) are largely from separate groups of people.

      Some people belong to both groups, but that's not necessarily hypocrisy either. It can be if you oppose legislation in general or wherever technological measures could be used instead. But people may have other criteria such as being against legislation that's bad for them and for legislation that's good for them. Nothing wrong with that.

    • by Valdrax ( 32670 ) on Tuesday July 23, 2002 @04:11PM (#3940069)
      It's only hypocrisy if you can only see things in a black-and-white view that people must be anarchists or totalitarians to be consistent. Most normal people believe in the concepts of "good legislation" and "bad legislation." You might be surprised to know that most people consider SPAM and copyright to be two completely seperate issues.

      Copyright law is about putting limits on ideas and concepts and selling them. I'm not 100% opposed to copyright, but I believe that current trends in legislation are destroying the balance between copyright owners and customers that makes copyright work properly. The issue here is whether or not people can take or do something with works someone else created without compensating them.

      SPAM is about the ultimate expression of our crass commercial society where businesses now treat people as consumers instead of customers. It's about shoving ads down people's throat and putting the burden of the cost on them. As far as spammers are concerned, we exist just to consume advertisting from them, and we should shut up, pay the costs, and like it. The thing is, they're not providing me with a service that I want in exchange for my added cost of living. The issue here is whether or not someone can create something and force people to have to bear the costs for it when they didn't want it in the first place.

      However, copyright protection and spam do share one important thing in common. Technological solutions are all useless without forcing people to adopt them. The question is whether or not we should support the "injured" party in either case. In the case of copyright, I don't believe we should. That's a matter of corporate welfare to protect an industry against technology that makes it obsolete. In the case of spam, I do believe we should. It's a matter of forcing someone to pay costs for a product he didn't want.
    • Spam is inherently different from the other things you list in that spammers effectively steal from their recipients by making them pay for bandwidth.
  • 6 times and has that stopped spam? NO! The only thing that it has done is slowed it down a bit and the more filters I put on my email account the less email I can recieve from people that are actually sending me real emails!
  • by leastsquares ( 39359 ) on Tuesday July 23, 2002 @02:36PM (#3939336) Homepage
    A couple of months ago I signed up for a Road-runner cable connection. At the time I hadn't finished putting my new PC together so I didn't connect for about the first 4 days. Guess what I saw when I did check my road-runner POP account for the first time... ...that's right, two emails offering me the chance of earning a degree, now, based on work-experience. Hmmm.

    Needless to say, I've never have, nor will, use that email address. I dread to think how much junk has collected in that inbox so far.
    • Your ISP didn't necessarily sell his user list. It may have been exposed to brute-force discovery bots, that go through the address space trying to find users.

      Large email domains all have this problem.

      • Yes, I agree. In fact it is much more likely that brute-force email address detection was used than AOL TW (owner of road-runner) selling the user list.

        (Besides the fact that any decent ISP should be able to detect and block this type of probing...) It means that changing email addresses will not help in eliminating spam from your inbox. That judge has probably smoked too much weed ;)

  • by jeffy124 ( 453342 ) on Tuesday July 23, 2002 @02:55PM (#3939515) Homepage Journal
    Most people have email addresses assigned by work/school -- firstname.lastname@company.com, fl##@company.com, flastname@company, etc, and they can't change that without changing their name in the courts.

    Also, the same theory could apply to changing my phone number to avoid telemarketers. Let's see the general populous react to that.

    Likewise, avoiding junk mail by changing snail mail addresses.

    Great inconveniences on both changing snail mail and phone numbers. Gotta notify friends, family, work, the state (get new DL for snail mail), the IRS (or other applicable tax collection agency), my bank, etc.

    As one person mentioned, what's the judge's email address? I bet it falls into the category of work-assigned addresses.
    • speaking of work/school email addresses, i dont think ive EVER recieved a piece of spam on either, and i'm entering my third year at school and my second year of work at the same place. i want to know if this is because of me, or because of filtering software at all, becuase i doubt i've been that careful with my email address.
  • All hotmail users complaining about spam will be executed summarily and on the spot. Non-hotmail emailers, proceed commenting.
  • by t0qer ( 230538 ) on Tuesday July 23, 2002 @03:52PM (#3939891) Homepage Journal
    fuck. No I'm seroius! I met a spammer in person! I reposted "Spamming for Dumbasses" on several spam related stories so do a search if you want some more detail.

    Basically from the spammer I saw and met, they completely take the argument of network resources out of the argument. If its on purpose or not, they play completely dumb to the problem of cloggin up mail servers.

    Right now, spamming IS and WILL be a legitimate business until proper legislation is made. As the spammer I talked to said, "Spamcop is interferring with my AMERICAN right to do business" Not that I agree with him, I was a sysadmin for 7 years so I know what damage he does to the systems out there. Funny thing is though, he's right! As anoying as it is, as much as I hate to admit it, spamming isn't really illegal anywhere yet.

    Another problem is with the laws that are created. One such law states something along the lines of, you must remove someone from your mailing list if they ask you. My spammers way around that was to keep a master list which he never touched, and just remove people from the sub list. I.e.

    His company was Company X
    He spammed for and from Company Y
    He gets a remove from list for company Y, but not X
    and the spam just keeps on comin.

    I made another +5 post about the Italians deleting that guys web site hosted in america. If we really want to put an end to this problem we would not allow spammers to look for loopholes like the one I explained above. Anyone that tries to find loopholes in the laws has no respect for them at all. Last time I checked all our laws are written in english, I may not have a law degree but I can follow the books well enough. Why does our goverment allow loopholes and circumvention to laws to be legal? Maybe we SHOULD take a hint from italy.

    You live somewhere, you follow the laws, simple as that. Be it real world or internet. People that circumvent those laws are scum.

    --toq
    • Funny thing is though, he's right! As anoying as it is, as much as I hate to admit it, spamming isn't really illegal anywhere yet.
      There's a hole in this argument. In fact, there are twenty-five holes [spamlaws.com] in the US alone, making it nearly impossible to send spam to a list of any size without violating the law somewhere. Half of our 50 states have laws which either prohibit spam outright or require some/all types of spam to conform to specific rules. In several states it's even illegal to create or distribute spamming software.

      Spamming is illegal in quite a few places. The problem is that in most of those places, the remedy available to victims is too small for individuals to bother pursuing, and the laws are never used by state AGs to initiate criminal proceedings. In my state I'm entitled to collect $10 for every spam I receive which violates the law (no forged headers, must have valid contact information, must be properly labeled, etc). I get hundreds of such spams every week; if it were really possible to collect any money from the spammers, I'd be retired.

      I wish the laws worked. They don't, and I'm not sure that they ever will; even if all 50 states had them, and even if a federal law were enacted. The pro spammers will move (as in physically expatriate) to China, Korea, or any number of other countries where their ill-gotten gains could buy them an extravagant lifestyle, and resume operations outside the reach of spam laws.

      Shaun
    • I have no problem at all with spam... you heard me. My beef is with falsified email addresses, falsified domain names, and hijacking unsuspecting mailservers for spam relay.

      If this guy invests in his own T1, and puts his own servers up, and finds a net provider willing let him send advertising email, more power to ya! I'll just filter it out if I don't want it, and he can go down in flames when all the clients foolish enough to use him find out that no-one is listening.

      If folks had to bear the cost of their traffic and had to be identifiable (and so prosecutable and filterable), 50% of spam would dry up in the first 3 months (when the internet bill is 60 days past due). The rest would be advertising the finest in adult entertainment, but apparently there's a market for that...

  • If that judge has an email account, spam it. Send lots of faxes. Send lots of snail mail. Show them what it really feels like.
  • Bmilter [blue-labs.org]

    Bmilter - Filter program for use with Sendmail
    July 5th, 2002

    Bmilter is written in C and uses the Sendmail Milter library. Bmilter is intended to be the most capable mail filter for sendmail in existence. Every means I can find that is an effective and sensible method for filtering spam will get plugged into Bmilter. There will be some exceptions naturally...I don't intend to support any perl type of plugin or scripting and I don't intend to weigh down the process in a CPU intensive heuristics or genetic anomaly detection routine.

    Until Bmilter reaches a stable production quality with message archiving, Bmilter will remain an advisory filter only. This means that Bmilter will NOT do any actual rejecting or dropping of mails. You may use your email client's built in filtering tools or if you have the option, using procmail. Bmilter inserts headers starting with X-Bmilter. Bmilter will insert a header stating the messages was fully processed by all filter methods only if the message has been scanned by all filters. Sendmail may abort Bmilter at any time, the milter program (Bmilter) has no control over this. This means that the email may have only been scanned partially or not at all.

    Example:

    * X-Bmilter: Message fully processed with Bmilter version xxx; timestamp
    * X-Bmilter: DNSBL=True; Sender IP 200.24.71.150 found at bl.spamcop.net
    * X-Bmilter: Failed Sender Verification=True; The mail server for the sender's domain doesn't support the email address that purportedly sent this email.

    What Bmilter does so far.

    Bmilter database
    Bmilter uses SQL (Postgres) to hold all the configuration, referred to from now on as the registry. Since I do everything very simple and standard with SQL, it should be a snap for anyone to add mysql etc. I personally won't do it because I don't have mysql installed and I don't want to. I'll happily apply patches sent to me however.DNS Blacklists
    Looks up the IP of the inbound connection against all the DNS blacklists in the Bmilter registrySMTP callback
    Verifies the following:

    * RFC 821, MAIL FROM:

    You are required to support a NULL return path according to RFC 821. Some people disable this either because they think it's cute or because they're trying to disable spam sent with a NULL return path. Irregardless, it's broken.
    * RFC 822, RCPT TO:

    Sites without Postmaster accounts are simply due to admin laziness or misconfiguration. According to RFC 822, you are required to accept mail for a few specific accounts, this is one of them.
    * RCPT TO:

    If the sender is unknown on the machine that answers for the domain used by the sender, then either a) the site is misconfigured or b) in all probability this is a spoofed email address and the email content is spam.

    Checks for a few random textual strings
    Right now Bmilter tests for the California ADV prefix in the Subject line. This is in preparation for regular expression implementations.Prelimiary Statistics
    Currently I'm cataloging the number of connections sent to Bmilter, the number of emails processed, and the number of aborts. Stats will develop for each individual filter for pass/fail/undetermined.

    User preferences

    * Authenticated Sender (key=auth); default action: accept; alternate action: continue;
    * DNS Blacklist (key=dnsbl); default action: tag; alternate actions: (remove from rcpt list|bounce);
    * SMTP Callback (key=smtpcallback); default action: tag; alternate action: reject;

"The great question... which I have not been able to answer... is, `What does woman want?'" -- Sigmund Freud

Working...