Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Spam Your Rights Online

Anti-Spam Site Accused of Spamming, Fixes Error 100

Posted by timothy from the to-be-removed-do-a-rain-dance dept.
An anonymous reader writes "According to this article on CNN, banthespam.com is accused of spamming its visitors. Excerpt: Even if an Internet user chose not to receive e-mail updates from the Telecommunications Research and Action Center, one of the effort's sponsors, the Web site replied with the message: 'You are currently signed up for news and information.' This doesn't help guys . . ." As the article states, the problem was quickly caught and corrected -- and banthespam.com looks like another force for good in the world.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anti-Spam Site Accused of Spamming, Fixes Error More

Anti-Spam Site Accused of Spamming, Fixes Error

Comments Filter:
  • I can hear it now -- the voice of a thousand Slashdotters crying "Why wasn't this opt-in," even though it was an accident and has been fixed. Hey, anyone fighting spam ahs to be good, right?

    /gleffler

  • much ado about nothing... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by outlier ( 64928 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2002 @06:33PM (#4197595)
    It seems that this is much ado about nothing. It seems that it was a case of overzealous cutting and pasting.

    According to this response by the alleged spammers [politechbot.com]:
    The TRAC site did indeed for a short period of time state "You are currently signed up for news and information." - but that statement was inaccurate and was just a template response that was generated when a person's story was submitted (standard language from a script that was copied).

    Don't ascribe to malice that which can be better explained by incompetance...
  • While it's not really a good thing for any large or visible company to make a mistake, it happens. This was probably just a 1-line or even 1 word fix in a script. Hopefully this won't become a reason for users to roast banthespam over a slow grill. People always seem to remember the bad things most... must be human nature.

    However, it is somewhat of an amusing irony to cover in slashdot...
    • Hopefully this won't become a reason for users to roast banthespam over a slow grill.
      CNN's original story this morning was an AP piece that quoted Adam Thierer of the spam-friendly Cato Institute [cato.org] essentially saying "Bwa-ha-ha, the anti-spam forces reveal their true colors." But the quote has been pulled from the current version [cnn.com] of the CNN story, which demoted the "spamming" to a "technical glitch."

  • Looks like someone made a mistake (Score:5, Funny)

    by LaserBeams ( 412546 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2002 @06:35PM (#4197607)
    Now, I'm just left wondering if it was an honest mistake to spam the visitors, or if someone thought the irony would boost visits...

    'Cuz that would be like /. posting some news that really didn't matter, just in an attempt to be funny...

    =D

    • How do you just "accidently" spam a bunch of people?

      Did their software have a toolbar icon titled "spam all customers" and somebody accidently clicked on it?

      I hope those same GUI designers don't design airlines and missles.

      "Nuke Astralia, Are You Sure? [Y,N]" (Note that 'Y' is the default here if you press enter.)

      I reminds me of the microsoft file download dialog box. When it is done with the download, it pops up a confirmation message. If you are typing and just happen to press a letter which corresponds with 'cancel' when the dialog box pops up (and it will take multiple keystrokes until it sees something it can understand), you just lost a 3-hour download.

      If I design such from-background pop-ups, I usually put the focus on a do-nothing camuflaged textbox to avoid having typing do something unexpected when it gains instant focus. (Ideally you would put the focus no-where, but some GUI tools don't seem to have this option.)
      • How do you just "accidently" spam a bunch of people?

        1. read first, then comment.
        2. when reading, pay attention.

        there was no spam. there was a template used in the site design that contained the sentence referring to the mailing list. this entire incident arose from a lazy reporter who came across that sentence and who, like you and so many others, never bothered to actually find out what was going on.

        criminy, is critical thinking completely absent from the world these days?

        mp

  • Big Deal. Seems whenever someone rushes to do something, they'll forget to doublecheck things. It's common. Sounds like they only alluded to have automagically opted users into the list.

    After all, (so far :) we're only human. Hell, when I go to make a beer run, sometimes I get to the store only to find I've left my wallet 3 miles away. Hate when that happens.

  • The most sure-fire way... (Score:4, Funny)

    by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2002 @06:36PM (#4197612) Homepage Journal
    ...to stop spam is to filter all the email that says "this message was not sent unsolicited."

  • Spamming me with ways to eliminate spam! Whoa...

    • Re:Whoa (irony mode on) (Score:5, Funny)

      by wilko11 ( 452421 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2002 @06:51PM (#4197672) Homepage
      I can't help but admire the irony of the spam messages I receive offering to "remove pop-ups for ever!!!". I am just waiting for the first spam that offers to "eliminate spam today!!!"
      • How about a pop-up ad that promises to remove pop-ups forever?! I forgot the software's name (it wasn't one that I was familiar with, either), but I've seen the ad for it-- in pop-up form-- at least twice this week...

      • i've received this, and in three languages
        portuguese, french and english
      • Just as amusing is the spam that offers to sell me a million "carefully selected e-mail addresses that are receptive to direct marketing". If my address is on that list then the selection process obviously isn't all that careful.
      • What we need now is a pop up offering to remove spam. Put them in the same room and duck - it might be like mixing matter and anti-matter.
      • It's one more spam in a sea of them. Go to a spammer, buy a million addresses worth of SpamAssassin ads. Make sure that you let people know up front that you are not associated with SA, so they don't get busted. Even give your own contact info and take the heat.

        The point is that if you just do this once for a mailing list, you've already devalued the spammer's list, while getting a bunch of people on SpamAssassin. Any chance this is a case where the end may justify the means?
  • When I was just a lad, I read all about 'em. Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote about Captain Carter, Barsoom, and the dreaded banthespams... Very dangerous.
  • Dunno, sounds like the auto-reply message was simply a cgi (or equivalent) bug. I've been known to write a few goodies in my life, too. Anyway, assuming it was a bug, no big deal.

    Although I don't think this was going on here, there seems to be the perceptions from nonprofits/groups/personal websites that if isn't selling something it isn't spam. I run a couple of large email lists and many people feel offended when I deny usage of the list, because sending unsolicited messages might be seen as spam.

    -Sean
    • My person best was a error dialog in a cics package my company wrote, and it wasnt even corrected until a localization team in france send me an email asking exactly how were they suppose to translate "Your settings are inconfigured incorrectly"

      hehe

  • Not much of a story... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Eric Damron ( 553630 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2002 @06:54PM (#4197687)
    Okay, so the web designer put the wrong message for the 'No mail' option. It was an embarrassment to the site and somewhat funny to the rest of us but not really all that news worthy.

    Oh well, at least I went to there site and read an article that did have value. Apparently the Telecommunications Research and Action Center is asking the FTC to rule that unsolicited commercial email is "deceptive and therefore unlawful"

    The email would have to meet certain criteria that are similar to the Washington State's anti-spamming law.

    Email would be considered illegal if it:

    Misrepresents the sender (in source or routing information)
    Misrepresents the subject or content of the email
    Fails to provide reliable contact information for the real party in interest
    Fails to provide a reliable opt-out system
    Is sent to an individual who has opted out or resigned from sender's list, or to whom sending unsolicited, commercial email is otherwise prohibited by law.

    Laws like this are seen as being a balance between our rights to privacy and a companies rights to communicate. Unfortunately, with any 'opt-out' strategy, the victim is overwhelmed by SPAM because he/she can not opt out as fast as his or her name is sold.

    We really need laws that make the selling of email addresses illegal.
    • Companies sell name to companies all the time in hopes that you might be interested in their products. If you buy a computer, why would you not possibly be interested in personalized mouse pads subscriptions to various magazines, etc.?

      The selling of email addresses should not be made illegal per se. There should be a check box to opt in to sell your address and for specific purposes. Anyone not doing so would face a hefty fine.

      Trouble with that is that the spammers will move offshore. But that's the criminal mind at work!!

      • It is not an easy balancing act. On the one hand there may be legitimate reasons that a company will share their customer information with each other.

        However I'm a bit on the cynical side. I believe that most of the time when people sell email addresses it is to make a profit via the sale. So, you see, I don't believe that they are doing it in my best interests.

        There are several reasons that I purposed a complete ban on the sale of email addresses.

        First, the most a egregious abuses of the email system comes from people who purchase mass mailing lists. These are neither opt-in addresses or targeted to a particular interest group. They are simply used for 'shotgun' style mailings.

        Second, the judicial system needs some teeth for this issue. You may have seen SPAM with the note at the bottom stating something to the effect that 'you are receiving this email because you opted in.' Of course you never did and the spammer knows it, but if push comes to shove the judicial system would be forced to prove that you never opted in. This could be very hard or impossible to do.

        I'm open to other ideas but I don't see any being effective.
    • I get the feeling that, even if I opt out of a given list, they still sell my information to others.

      It would be nice if it were possible to legally prohibit selling of an email address.

  • in other news (Score:4, Funny)

    by lingqi ( 577227 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2002 @06:54PM (#4197688) Journal
    Microsoft was found to have several pieces of software (including the ever popular BOB) which had licenses that looked suspiciously like GPL. However, after being called the "prince of open source movement," Company spokesdrones declared that it was in fact a clerical error, and Microsoft has every intention to continue on the path of Evil Empire (tm), and promptly put very restrictive licenses onto the aforementioned software, therefore continuing to be a force of evil in the world.
  • You have been placed in this opt-in message by banthespam.com -- If you want to be removed, please click our link.

    In the meantime, here are some products that you may be interested in... This is not spam! Remember that! Spam is bad.... so on with our ploy^C^C^Cresentation..

  • Who? (Score:2)

    by catfood ( 40112 )

    I've been following the anti-spam newsgroups and organizations for something like five years now, and I've never heard of banthespam.com before now.

    Are they for real or what?

    • Re:Who? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Erasmus Darwin ( 183180 )
      "I've never heard of banthespam.com before now."

      Considering that the article makes a passing reference to the fact that this incident happened on banthespam's first day, I suspect they're brand new.

  • Whilst you may feel a little sorry for their foolishness, the fact that something is a 'mistake' doesn't excuse it.

    You wouldn't be saying it was alright if they made a 'mistake' by not stepping on the brake pedal and running someone over, or made a 'mistake' by not locking their firearm away.

    Ignorance has never been an excuse and increased accountability is appropriate.

    Meanwhile, I look forward to reading how the RIAA moves were (ahem) a mistake and the information was errantly posted by a web-developer who really didn't know what he was talking about...
    • yeah, except that last time i checked, printing an incorrect message on a webpage didn't kill anyone.
    • You wouldn't be saying it was alright if they made a 'mistake' by not stepping on the brake pedal and running someone over, or made a 'mistake' by not locking their firearm away

      No, but if someone said "I didn't step on the brake", when actually they did, or they DID lock their firearm away, but said they didn't, that would be a 'mistake'.

      Considering the only 'damage' was that they printed the wrong message, I think it DOES excuse it.
  • that it was bathe n spam.com.

  • "Force for good in the world?" (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Which means, I suppose, that spammers are "evil."

    *sigh*

    Look, I can understand if you find spam annoying. I sometimes do, as well. But evil? Spammers, like 'em or not, are just exercising their rights to free speech and to free capitalistic enterprise. These are the two things that Osama bin Laden and his ilk hate most about the West; it's interesting that you would choose to call the bulk mailers evil instead of the terrorists who have our way of life in their targets.

    Get some perspective, please. There IS a lot of evil in this world, but it ain't coming from American small businesses.
    • Yes, good and evil are opposites. So are good and bad. Would you agree that spammers are bad?

      They aren't just exercising their rights to free speech and enterprise. They are actually taking advantage of a technology that is so new that there is no legal precendent for it yet.
    • Spammers, like 'em or not, are just exercising their rights to free speech and to free capitalistic enterprise.

      You are either an idiot or a spammer yourself. Spammers usurp the resources of third parties without permission in order to distribute and store unwanted advertising. Spammers are typically sociopaths who care nothing that they are bothering others and stealing the resources of third-party ISPs.

      I just suffered a mailbomb attack because the owner of www.praise-jesus.tv and documented fraud artist Clark Mankin didn't like that I complained about his spam run to QWest.net. Spammers are evil, and death is too good for them.

      Spam is not 'free speech'. It is theft of service and trespass to chattel. It is no more a right than is spray-painting graffitti on privately owned businesses.
      • If spammers insist on spamming so that we have to waste our time and resources dealing with it, we should send bills for our time.

        Lets see. $200/hour, 1 hour minimum, per spam...

        I get rid of telemarketers the same way.

        them: Hello - I'm a complete stranger calling because your (unlisted) phone number was generated by the computer...

        me: My time is billable, can I have your name and credit card number please before we continue...

        - nobody has yet to make up a name and credit card number, they just hang up.

        Would spam stop if nobody bought anything advertised on spam? Who the hell is it that buys things or clicks links from spam? Perhaps we could get these people disconnected from the internet too.
    • Spammers, like 'em or not, are just exercising their rights to free speech and to free capitalistic enterprise.

      Write 500 times:

      Theft is not free speech. Theft is not free capitalistic enterprise.
    • Some spammers are evil; thieves, convicted criminals, child porn peddlers, scammers and joe-jobbing felons (joe-jobbing is forging a spam to appear to have been sent by the intended victim of the joe-job).

      Spam, however, is ALWAYS evil regardless who sends it or why is it sent. The reason why spam is evil is here:

      http://www.clifto.com/8345.html

      For anyone who'se work revolves around the ability to receive and send Email, I think the above article should be obvious.

      Proletariat of the world, unite to kill spammers. The more painfully, the better

  • TRAC is astroturf, a Verizon PR front (Score:4, Informative)

    by isdnip ( 49656 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2002 @08:53PM (#4198112)
    Funny that the site should come from TRAC. This is a classic example of Washington "astroturf", phoney grass roots organizations. TRAC is run by Sam Simon of Issue Dynamics, a P.R. firm that works for incumbent telephone monopolists like Verizon. Their main activity is publicizing anyone but AT&T as being a better long-distance alternative to AT&T. There's a long and bitter blood feud between AT&T and Verizon (fka Bell Atlantic). Sam's a hired gun.

    In this case, it's likely that Verizon is smarting over the cost of spam to its Verizon Online operation. Verizon is trying to get the FCC and/or Congress to give them an absolute monopoly over DSL ISP service. The FCC has a proposal on the table now (FCC NPRM 02-33) to remove common carriage rules from ILEC DSL, so that Verizon can say that if you use their DSL telecom service, you must use their ISP. Bye-bye to all the local ISPs who buy Verizon DSL to reach their subs. There's also the Dingell-Tauzin bill in Congress which effectively repeals the Telcom Act, and bans competitive LECs from accessing ILEC raw wire in order to provision their own DSL. Also note that Verizon Online forces you to put @verizon.net in the From: field of mail sent through their SMTP relay; you can't be From: your choice of mail hosts! Forced advertising, no less.

    So when they come out with an anti-spam site (and Sam doesn't brush his teeth without a Verizon top exec's permission), I take it with a boulder of salt.
  • Please pray to the computer gods now. That is all. Isn't this story a bit like hearing the Cancer Society has been driving people around in busses [www.cbc.ca].

  • Anti spam site, LOL? (Score:4, Informative)

    by KevinMS ( 209602 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2002 @09:17PM (#4198208)
    We sometimes get blamed for spam at Sneakemail.com. The funny thing is when we get blamed its because the user just forgets they are using Sneakemail and when spam gets sent through their disposable email address we provide its so transparent they forget whats happening and think we're spamming them. Actually when they get spam it means Sneakemail worked perfectly since their real email address wasnt actually spammed, as it would have been. This actually got us kicked off our first net provider.

    I work for Sneakemail.com. We are an anti spam site. The first and longest living disposable email address site for what its worth, over 2 years. See the sig for the link. Sneakemail is an online application that truely fights spam and lets you catch spam easily. What is this, a anti-spam petition? Thats so much easier than thousands of lines of code, why didnt we think of that, damn?

    If we screw up and actually send people spam do we get a story on slashdot?

    Thanks for reading, this has been a shameless promotion for Sneakemail.com :P
    • Sneakemail is an online application that truely fights spam and lets you catch spam easily.


      What do you mean by 'fights spam', I interpret that as action or actions that directly reduce the volume of spam on the Internet.

      I don't see how Sneakemail reduces the volume of spam on the Internet. Yes, it allows an individual to reduce the exposure of his private email address to email harvesters by providing expendable email addresses. But does nothing to reduce the amount of spam attempting to be delivered.

      Spam isn't just an inbox problem, it is a traffic-jam problem too - which is more serious and damaging.

      As far as you know, how much traffic is generated by email sent to non-existing sneakmail addresses - those addresses that used to be in use but discarded? This traffic still uses up resources and network capacity from the start to the destination, until it gets dropped by your mail servers.

      I do acknowledge Sneakemail provides a valuable service to individuals, but as a tool that actively "fights spam" it doesn't measure up.
      • Well, none of the blocking software actually "fights spam" under your definition either. Because all they do is block you from seeing it -- depending on where the anti-spam software is, the bandwidth has already been used to the ISP (at a minimum) and perhaps to you.

        Actually, Sneakemail and its ilk do improve things, or at least shifts them. Disable an address that's being spammed and you'll no longer receive the mail. It won't use any bandwidth from the ISP to you, and it won't even use bandwidth to the ISP (note - some of the bandwidth gets shifted to Sneakemail, who tells the sender "no such address" when the SMTP connection is made -- which you noted). Even so, this is a net reduction in the bandwidth used, which is more than the anti-spam filters can say.

        Neither is an ideal solution. Until we get some serious anti-spam laws there's nothing that'll be done.
      • Actually, what do you think happens when one of our users actually can figure out where the spammed address originated from. That right, the first a-hole that actually decided to pass the address on to spammers. It has a chilling effect when a so-called legit business, or a liquidated business, can no longer sell lists of their users addresses without getting busted. Its email DNA evidence. That my friend, is a reduction in spam on the internet.
    • The first and longest living disposable email address site for what its worth, over 2 years.

      I thought hotmail and yahoo mail were older than that.

  • The backlash against unsolicited marketing is really incredible these days, and it makes me happy to see people 'taking up the fight'.

    My own company produces anti-spam software, and we have actually been accused of 'unsolicited marketing' in the past - when in reality we were mentioning our product in a valid medium, where announcements for new products were actually requested!

    In the end, the accusations turned to apologies but our reputation as anti-spam company almost went down the drain. The Internet Activist community is a scary force to be reckoned with ; and that type of power requires some checks and balances from time to time.

    Do I believe this particular company was trying to spam its own users? Yes, it seems pretty obvious they didn't care, and in all likelihood it was not a mistake.

    Does this mean the company can not be shown the error of its ways, and reform? I believe it's possible. If online businesses knew the power of legitimate marketing methods, they would never take the chance at getting a negative slashdot. :)

    • The thing is, there are some quite interesting perspectives out there on spam, which should be given a bit more consideration all-round.

      First, there's the guy who received an email from a colleague at my previous company, sent only to addresses of folks at a local computer expo who expressed an interest - ranting loudly, "I'm sure Spews will be interested to hear of your bulk-mail!" (to all of 20 people anyway) etc etc. Strangely enough, after I replied in person I didn't hear as much as an apology. Rate this chap how you may.

      Second, there's the role of a sysadmin in a company where several forms of regular and/or bulk mail-shots are either required and/or requested. Specifically, I can think of at least one financial-services website where there was a weekly newsletter, a monthly newsletter (both opt-in at signup time) and a service for receiving stock-price alerts as well. Of course you get people who forget they opted-in to things, or make a mistake and click the wrong buttons, or change their mind and want to opt out... that's where being a real sysadmin who *does* honour the "mail us here to opt out" line in an email gets quite interesting as I'm well aware of it being a spam-harvester line (as is everyone else) rather than a genuine attempt, which it actually can be.

      And thirdly, there's the dubious joy of being on the receiving end of a spammer using an open relay somewhere in Turkey with envelope headers set to your domain name. Just watch all the net-weenies reply to *you* complaining lots thinking "from, subject, to" constitutes "all the headers"...

      There are these extremes, but if people know the companies with which they have regular dealings, and if they stop to think, a lot of the heat and anger can be taken out of this "anti-spam activism" crap, and a genuine mission to stamp out real spam undertaken in a more gentlemanly / professional / calm-headed manner.
  • Pigs aren't big enough to make more than a couple dozen cans of Spam... so now they're making Spam out of Banthas? I hope the Sand People don't find out... they'd probably get upset.

    Oh, and just because all Spam posts need a haiku:

    Bantha: Shaggy beast
    with big horns, on Tatooine
    now in small tin cans
    • now they're making Spam out of Banthas?

      Maybe it's an attempt to reach the Jewish market? Bantha spam could be Kosher, couldn't it?

Slashdot Top Deals

Consider the postage stamp: its usefulness consists in the ability to stick to one thing till it gets there. -- Josh Billings

Close