Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Spam The Internet Your Rights Online

Spamhaus Guru Steve Linford Profiled 191

Posted by simoniker from the snickety-snick dept.
BenLev writes "The New York Times has an article profiling Spamhaus Project director Steve Linford. The feature goes behind the scenes at Spamhaus, 'one of the leading groups that is trying to make the world safe from junk e-mail', showing that it operates from Linford's houseboat on the Thames near London, spammers don't like him, and his volunteer corps likens itself to the X-Men."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spamhaus Guru Steve Linford Profiled More

Spamhaus Guru Steve Linford Profiled

Comments Filter:

  • good idea. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by waitigetit ( 691345 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @03:59AM (#7432748)
    I like the idea of the do not spam registry that they mention in the article. But it seems like a real pipe dream considering how much trouble there has been getting the do-not-call registry up and running.

    Also, most telemarketing is done from in-country because of LD charges. Not so with e-mail. It's pretty hard to enforce US laws on a Taiwan spamhaus.

    Ah well, every little voice against spam warms me a little at least.

    • Re:good idea. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Phroggy ( 441 ) * <slashdot3@NOsPaM.phroggy.com> on Monday November 10, 2003 @04:16AM (#7432795) Homepage
      I like the idea of the do not spam registry that they mention in the article. But it seems like a real pipe dream considering how much trouble there has been getting the do-not-call registry up and running.

      Compared to spammers, the sleaziest telemarketers are shining pillars of ethical perfection. Telemarketers will not abuse the Do Not Call list - if nothing else, than because they REALLY fear the FCC (and FTC or whoever winds up administering it). They run legitimate, legal businesses, and can't afford to run the risk of breaking the law.

      Spammers, on the other hand, care not for such things. If there ever were a Do Not Spam list created, and it was done in such a way that the list itself would not be published, you can bet somebody would write a script to randomly generate billions of e-mail addresses, check every one of them against the Do Not Spam list, compile a list of every e-mail address that matches, and sell it as a list of confirmed opt-in e-mail addresses on CD-ROM for $500.

      • Re:good idea. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by waitigetit ( 691345 )
        If the only reason they don't call you is fear for punishment, that does not make them ethical.

        I think a more important difference is that it costs them money to call you. So, basically, a Do Not Call list saves them money because they do not need to call people who hate telemarketing.


        • I think a more important difference is that it costs them money to call you. So, basically, a Do Not Call list saves them money because they do not need to call people who hate telemarketing.

          If a national Do Not Call list saves telemarketers money, why are they fighting it? Heck - why hasn't there been a private firm jumping on this niche?

          Telemarketers WANT to call everyone - even those who would prefer not to get calls. One good reason for this seemingly odd behavior is that some of these people

        • Re:good idea. (Score:3, Informative)

          by jpetts ( 208163 )
          I think a more important difference is that it costs them money to call you. So, basically, a Do Not Call list saves them money because they do not need to call people who hate telemarketing.

          I've spoken to the husband of a friend who works at a telemarketing place, and actually telemarketers hate the DNC list, since it allows people who have problems with saying no and confrontational situations - vulnerable people who are one of the telemarketers' main targets - to say no anonymously, with no conflict.

          I

        • Re:good idea. (Score:2, Insightful)

          by riffer ( 75940 )
          Absolutely correct. Spammers don't use their own money and resources they criminally hijack server space, bandwidth and more in order to perform their "business".

          Plus the majority of spam is either totally fraudulent (i.e. 491 Nigerian crap, MLM schemes, etc) or 80% fraudulent (herbal viagra, weight-loss pills, etc... People who order that shit usually get something in the mail but it's not going to work as claimed).

          Since spammers are now willing to unleash whole new virus schemes just to generate the o

      • ...they wouldn't bother checking against the "do not spam" list. Spammers are, by nature, sociopaths with absolutely no regard for the law. Further, they tend to define "spamming" as anything other than that which they do.

        The only sure-fire solution to the spam problem is brutally and publically torturing spammers to death.
      • That's easy to deal with. You seed the list with spamtrap addresses. When (not if) a spamtrap address gets spammed, the FTC tracks down the ethikul bidnez it is advertising and tells them "Either you roll over on the spammer, or you take the fall." And when the spammer says "We bought the list from someone else," you tell them, "You're still in violation for not checking these addresses, but we'll refrain from criminal charges if you roll over on who you bought it from."

        Still doesn't deal with off-shore sp

    • Re:good idea. (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      So call me a troll, but...
      It's pretty hard to enforce US laws on a Taiwan spamhaus.

      And why exactly would anyone want to use US law in this case? Hasn't it been proven to be about as toothless and worthless, not to say non-existant end sometimes even endorsing spammers? Thanks, but no thanks. It would be like trying to get rid of cockroaches by drowning them in excrements.

      If anything, a law which actually tries to stop these sleazy vermin should be used. If the mentioned EU law/directive is that much bet

    • * 2003-11-09 08:06:52 NYT Profiles Steve Linford & Spamhaus Project (articles,spam)

      The New York Times Technology [nytimes.com]'s Saul Hansell profiles Spamhaus Project founder Steve Linford, everyone's favorite houseboat-dwelling, anti-spam activist [nytimes.com] (Google [nytimes.com]). The longish article also neatly describes the history, issues and new directions spam is taking, and the tactics that spammers are using to limit Spamhaus [spamhaus.org]'s effectiveness. Linford is quoted as saying, 'E-mail is the most incredible communication vehicle in

  • If the volunteer corps are the X-Men, then what are the spammers?

  • Adding info to DNS servers (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Space cowboy ( 13680 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @04:01AM (#7432755) Journal
    What happened to that proposal to add records (as comments, so the DNS protocol wasn't broken) to the DNS saying that a domain was authoratative for the envelope 'From ' header ? That sounded like a good idea, so long as the MTA's took it up...

    Simon

    • SPF (Score:5, Informative)

      by KMSelf ( 361 ) <karsten@linuxmafia.com> on Monday November 10, 2003 @05:42AM (#7432952) Homepage

      SPF [pobox.com]. Several proposals have been rolled up in this, under ASRG [irtf.org], including SPF, RMX, DMP, and related proprosals.

    • There are times when people want to sent legitimate anonymous e-mails. I don't think that disabling that is the way to go. Besides that: most people look to the sender, not the e-mail address before they open an e-mail, so this will have limited value. And as you see: Spamhous has other ways to find out who did it. Another problem is that some addresses like Hotmail aren't bound to a provider (and DNS).

      Instead I think it is better to work on the link between the hacked computer and the provider. Maybe you

    • What happened to that proposal to add records (as comments, so the DNS protocol wasn't broken) to the DNS saying that a domain was authoratative for the envelope 'From ' header?

      It is still an internet-draft. I think the URL for the current version is here [ietf.org].

      That sounded like a good idea, so long as the MTA's took it up...

      Yes, unless a really high proportion of the people who send you mail made these records available, you couldn't block mail that didn't have it. It might work as a "probably not sp

    • Re:Adding info to DNS servers (Score:5, Informative)

      by The Famous Brett Wat ( 12688 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @06:14AM (#7433016) Homepage Journal

      There are quite a number of such proposals. For instance...

      ...among others. The Internet Research Task Force Anti-Spam Research Group (IRTF ASRG) currently has a sub-group specifically dedicated to the unification of these proposals. This is a relatively recent initiative (only about a month old). You can find archives of the discussion at gmane.org [gmane.org].

      • This discussion (at gmane.org) clearly shows that the main problem is not technical but social. All proposals are good enough to make spammers' life harder. But people can't work together. That is why the unification fails, the is why SMTP can't be replaced in the near future, and that is why a simple SMTP sender authentication will take year to be implemented worldwide.

  • These guys block pretty large blocks. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ron_ivi ( 607351 ) <sdotno@NOSpAM.cheapcomplexdevices.com> on Monday November 10, 2003 @04:02AM (#7432758)
    Few weeks ago, much of my email was blocked because because spamhaus.org was blocking a huge (69.64.32.59/20) range that contains our address.

    My particular server (a dedicated box) was innocent, but my hosting facility had spammers on other dedicated boxes.

    Isn't blocking a /20 like swatting flys with a hand grenade?

    • Re:These guys block pretty large blocks. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Indy1 ( 99447 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @04:21AM (#7432809)
      /20 isnt that agressive. Probably your isp kept moving the spammers around and spamhaus said fuck it and plonked a bigger range. Stop blamming the blacklists and start yelling at your isp to stop hosting spammers. If your going to live in a crackhouse, dont be surprised when your friends refuse to visit you.

    • this didn't happen by accident (Score:5, Informative)

      by RMH101 ( 636144 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @04:49AM (#7432854)
      your ISP or their upstream is spam-friendly and RFC ignorant. they've repeatedly ignored LARTS for spam, and this is the price they pay. Your mail is only blocked by ISPs who've voluntarily signed up with SPEWS/Spamhaus because it works for them. The idea is you and all the other guys it's pissed off will complain/take your business elsewhere and the ISP will be encouraged to behave responsibly. They've already ignored warnings, hence the voluntary block.

      • your ISP or their upstream is spam-friendly and... this is the price they pay.

        But they're not paying the price, the OP is.

        The idea is you and all the other guys it's pissed off will complain/take your business elsewhere and the ISP will be encouraged to behave responsibly.

        But what if there isn't anywhere else to take their business to? Perhaps they recently entered into a long-period contract, or there simply aren't any other providers that they can use (particularly possible if it's the upstream tha


        • Don't get me wrong, I'm by no means spam-friendly, and I do support efforts to tackle it. I just think that some of those efforts are a little too wide-reaching. By all means block IPs, but specific ones, not whole ranges; it's not fair on the innocent bystanders that inevitably get caught in the crossfire.

          Sure. Sounds great. Now - what do you do when the ISP in question just bumps the offending spammer to a new block of IPs? Or how about that one fast-burner marketing type at the ISP who's discov

        • But they're not paying the price, the OP is.

          Forgive me for not caring. The ISP is supporting criminal activity by hosting spammers. As such, there's no reason for me to want traffic from that ISP. If the OP wants his mail to get through, then he should find an IP address not owned by a bunch of sleazebags who openly support and encourage criminal activity.

          By all means block IPs, but specific ones, not whole ranges

          That has been tried. It failed. The spam-friendly ISPs just moved their spammers ar
          • Hmmm, isn't there some sort of law to deal with someone who offers a service, collects the fee, then runs the service in such a way as to make it worth substantially less than the customer was led to believe? That is, couldn't there be legal means of breaking a contract with an ISP that operates in a manner that devalues its own services?

            Or maybe there's something to address the act of knowingly harboring a public nuisance actually created by another party? Humph, there's at least one law permitting a pa
            • That is, couldn't there be legal means of breaking a contract with an ISP that operates in a manner that devalues its own services?

              It has been suggested by anti-spam groups, but many people who find themselves on spam-friendly ISPs prefer whining about it rather than being proactive. Apparently it's not their fault and it's not the fault of the ISP for hosting spammers, it's the fault of people who don't want to accept traffic from spam-friendly ISPs.
    • No, spanhaus was not blocking your eMail. spamhaus doesn't block anyone's eMail. They list offenders. Individual people decide to block. If your preferred isp gets listed for bad behaviour and are unable to provide you the service for which you contracted, you should take it up with your isp.

      And you readily admit that your isp was supporting & hosting spammers?!? Was this a troll? If your housing association or your employer starts dumping raw sewage into the local nature preserve, you should expect t

    • Re:These guys block pretty large blocks. (Score:4, Informative)

      by frankie ( 91710 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @10:16AM (#7433999) Journal
      spamhaus.org was blocking a huge (69.64.32.59/20) range that contains our address.

      Are you absolutely 100% sure you were blocked by Spamhaus and not by SPEWS? Spamhaus generally tries quite hard to avoid "collateral damage".

      • Dammit, stupid non-optical mouse jumped and I hit Submit instead of Preview.

        Anyways, I meant to say that 69.64.32.59 is listed in SPEWS [spews.org] and it is not listed in Spamhaus [slashdot.org]. Given that the wider-reaching SPEWS only lists a /24 in that vicinity, I find it higly implausible that Spamhaus would drop a /20.

        Instead, I am starting to consider the notion that there is a pro-spammer astroturf campaign being waged against blocklist sites.

        • Instead, I am starting to consider the notion that there is a pro-spammer astroturf campaign being waged against blocklist sites.

          Starting?

          Haven't you heard of "antispews.org"? It's dead now, but it was a clearly spammer-run outfit claiming to serve the "victims" of SPEWS in tracking down whomever ran SPEWS and suing them. Full of bluster on how they were "this close" to exposing the organization, they were a relatively reliable source of amusement in news.admin.net-abuse.email
        • Both Smaphaus and SPEWS blocked the range at different times (bounce excerpt below).

          Spamhaus was quicker than SPEWS at undoing the blacklist - and again, it appears spammers were in the blocked range so I'm not blaming either organization or anything - Just pointing out that (by design or otherwise) blocking wide address ranges do some collateral dammage.

          Here's the old bounce message.

          63.205.228.48 does not like recipient.
          Remote host said: 554 Service unavailable; Client host [69.64.33.64] blocked using

  • Yadda yadda yadda (Score:5, Informative)

    by Phroggy ( 441 ) * <slashdot3@NOsPaM.phroggy.com> on Monday November 10, 2003 @04:05AM (#7432765) Homepage
    Non-NYT site [iht.com]
  • ... his volunteer corps likens itself to the X-Men ...

    Yeah, well, I'll bet none of his volunteer group looks anything like Jean Gray, Storm, or Rogue, but I'll also bet they play them online ...

  • What're the odds that... (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Some spammer goes and tries to sink his houseboat? They'd now know how to find it...

  • We've got all the laws we need (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jmv ( 93421 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @04:21AM (#7432808) Homepage
    I really believe that we currently have all (well mostly) the laws we need to stop spammers, if only they were enforced. Even if SPAM is still not illegal in most places. What most spammers do is illegal. Instead of fining a spammer for sending Nigerian scams, jail him for fraud. Instead of fining a viagra spammer, jail him for cracking in other people's computers in order to send the spam. Much more effective I think. Why go for "minor" civil offense when the spammer is actually guity of a criminal offense. I know not all spammers commit crimes, many do.
  • Qoute

    "Mr. Linford said he believed that spammers could be contained, if not eliminated. A tough new anti-spam law in Europe will help, he said. The proposed Can-Spam act in the United States, he said, is not tough enough, but he figures that when it fails to work, Congress will have to make a stronger law. But Mr. Linford gloomily predicts that spammers will simply move more of their operations to Asia and Latin America."

    Fine, let the spammers move their servers to asia and latin america. I've already ba
  • I'm not saying that it will happen anytime soon, but I honestly can't see guys like this stopping spammers as a whole any time soon.

    I don't get a lot of spam, mainly because I don't post my email address all over the internet, but I would love to use a secure (PGP or other) email client. Sure, I could set one up now, but how many of my friends/colleagues will also be using it? Not many at all.

    Computers are supposed to be tools used to enhance our productivity. Sadly they quite often do the opposite, mainl

    • Re:Just a matter of time until we get secure email (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Analysis Paralysis ( 175834 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @05:59AM (#7432986)
      What Spamhaus does that is different in that they provide information on the worst spammers on their ROKSO [spamhaus.org] list - including names, addresses and phone numbers where known. For some reason, spammers do not like being "outed" (I wonder why? [freep.com]) and this has, in one case, caused a spammer to cease business [nzherald.co.nz].

      I doubt that any progress will be made in fighting spam until Microsoft/Apple include authentication options in their default mail applications.

      Unfortunately, authentication is unlikely to do much to stop spam unless people use it with a personal whitelist of permitted senders. It is currently straightforward to track a spam email (SpamCop [spamcop.net] can do this if you paste the email in with full header information) but nowadays it typically comes from a cable/DSL user whose machine has been hijacked.

  • This doesn't seem to be helping... (Score:5, Informative)

    by DeionXxX ( 261398 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @04:38AM (#7432832)
    I don't know about everyone else but lately I've been trying to find work and I have come across atleast 4 opportunities to make 1.5 times my normal rate if I do some development related to spam. Each time I've interviewed I've told the employer that spam was a bad way to go and that it'd be illegal soon etc... but it seems like they've all had past experiences where spam has been highly profitable.

    -- D3X

    My latest endeavour... truly free porn www.NeoX3.com [neox3.com] 5 mins movies supported by only a 15 sec commercial. No-popups or membership or catches.

  • The end of spam (Score:4, Interesting)

    by heironymouscoward ( 683461 ) <heironymouscowar ... m ['oo.' in gap]> on Monday November 10, 2003 @04:41AM (#7432838) Journal
    I'm surprised no-one has thought through the logical conclusions of where we're going with spam.

    Spam filters work only for those able to configure them. For the vast majority of Internet users, they are just a dream.

    Spam blacklists are unsustainable in a world where most net connections come across DHCP, and most spam is/will be sent from owned home computers.

    Spam merchants will continue to harness the 'dark side of the force', paying crackes and virus writers to create the networks of owned machines they need to operate from... ... since there is nothing serious happening against any of these directions, the conclusion seems unavoidable. What I'd like to say is that
    the Net will split into two halves, an "infected" and a "clean" part, and every single transaction from the infected part will be treated with scrutiny and suspicion.

    But this is impossible too.

    Conclusion: the purity of the net is a thing of the past. We will come to understand that traffic is bad until demonstrated good. Emails will be 99.999% junk, virus, and trojan, and the art will come not from filtering out this junk but from detecting the signal within the noise.

    Clearly, whitelists are part of the solution but they are limited since you can't form a network of whitelists, it's a one-to-one solution that does not scale.

    I see only one solution that is scalable. Data clearing houses. You register with me, I'll vouch for all your data, and pass it on to those who need it, along with my signature. A trust network, if you like.

    Data clearing houses will rate each other, creating a system of moderation in which data is never guaranteed good, but at least you get a measurable index of confidence.

    • I just wanted to say I think you have the right idea, and there are definitely movements in this direction.
    • Spam filters work only for those able to configure them. For the vast majority of Internet users, they are just a dream.

      I think the vast majority of Internet users already use filters, but they are configured by the user's ISP, not by the user.

      Spam blacklists are unsustainable in a world where most net connections come across DHCP, and most spam is/will be sent from owned home computers.

      Updates of the dial-up list will stop this. Don't accept incoming email connections from machines using DHCP. It's

    • Re:The end of spam (Score:5, Funny)

      by McDutchie ( 151611 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @06:21AM (#7433028) Homepage
      Ah, here is another one who has found the Final Ultimate Solution to the Spam Problem [rhyolite.com].
    • While I agree with you that the only viable solution is a system where email is guilty until proven innocent, I don't believe that a "Data clearinghouse" is the answer. That idea is roughly the same thing as using digital signatures. If we take that route, spammers could buy one of them under a front business name for a total cost of $100 or so. They move quickly and pump out as much spam as possible until their certificate gets revoked. It'll make a dent in their bottom line, but everyone else also tak
      • I was not suggesting a technological fix, but a social one.

        Something like this... you can send data through my clearing house. I have a good reputation, let's say AAA, because I'm really strict about who I accept data from. In any period, you can't send more than 20% of the total you've ever sent, and if you abuse my reputation I'll cut you off.

        Perhaps I'll ask you to place a financial deposit in case you misbehave.

        Clearly, people will pay a premium to have their data sent through the most trusted clea

    • Re:The end of spam (Score:3, Informative)

      by taustin ( 171655 )
      Spam blacklists are unsustainable in a world where most net connections come across DHCP, and most spam is/will be sent from owned home computers.

      That was a problem solved several years ago. Many ISPs simply block any and all DCHP addresses that they can identify, and many specifically list their DHCP addresses with some of the block lists to make it easier.

      This is because nearly all email from DCHP addresses is, in fact, spam, and most of the rest is from someone violating their AUP in the first place,
    • Clearly, whitelists are part of the solution but they are limited since you can't form a network of whitelists, it's a one-to-one solution that does not scale.

      Are you sure? [web-o-trust.org]

  • Can anyone tell me how to query the Spamhaus block list (SBL) from a Linux command line? I tried to use the "dig" utility to do this ("dig @sbl.spamhaus.org suspectedspammer.com any") but it doesn't work.

    I read the "how to use SBL page" (here [spamhaus.org]) and I understand that I can set my MTA to use it to block spam. But I'd like to test it out a bit before putting it into production, and ideally I'd like to be able to use this in scripts.

    steveha
    • Supposed you have a suspect IP, "A.B.C.D". You start by reversing the octets: "D.C.B.A", then perform an A lookup, not a PTR, against the host "D.C.B.A.sbl.spamhaus.org". If it returns 127.0.0.2, then you have a win^H^H^H loser! To perform a check against other DNSBL providers, simply replace the "sbl.spamhaus.org" with the appropriate host, for example "bl.spamcop.org".

      Also, note that you do not have to query directly against the DNSBL DNS server because it's just another host in the DNS heirarchy.

      • Re:Using SBL from command line? (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The above is good, but try using a TXT lookup instead. Thats "dig D.C.B.A.sbl.spamhaus.org TXT".

        For example, let's say our spammer of the day (We'll call him 'Drew Auman', because that's his real name) is spamming his domain "kingherbal.biz" with an IP address 203.197.204.86.

        [root@localhost] # dig 86.204.197.203.sbl.spamhaus.org TXT

        ; > DiG 8.3 > 86.204.197.203.sbl.spamhaus.org TXT
        ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
        ;; got answer:
        ;; ->>HEADER ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER

        • Even better is an ANY lookup (and use host instead of dig)..

          Here's a quick bash script to do a lookup in various blacklists:

          #!/bin/sh

          doms="sbl.spamhaus.org
          dnsbl.njabl.o rg
          blackholes.easynet.nl
          sbl.spamhaus.org
          cbl.a buseat.org
          dnsbl.sorbs.net
          opm.blitzed.org"

          i f [ "x$1" = "x" ]; then
          echo "Usage: $0 [ipaddress]"
          exit
          else
          n=`echo $1 |awk -F. '{print $4"."$3"."$2"."$1}'`
          for j in ${doms}; do
          host ${n}.${j}
          done
          fi

    • rblcheck:

      tmh@sisko:~$ rblcheck 192.168.1.4
      192.168.1.4 not RBL filtered by cbl.abuseat.org
      192.168.1.4 not RBL filtered by list.dsbl.org
      192.168.1.4 not RBL filtered by blackholes.easynet.nl
      192.168.1.4 not RBL filtered by dynablock.easynet.nl
      192.168.1.4 not RBL filtered by dnsbl.njabl.org
      192.168.1.4 not RBL filtered by sbl.spamhaus.org
      192.168.1.4 not RBL filtered by l1.spews.dnsbl.sorbs.net

  • Pay me... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Cygnus78 ( 628037 )
    0.01 $ to get on my whitelist.

    Which spammer has the energy ?

    If you really want to mail me, you probably have the energy and the money, or if you really want I could pay you back :)

  • Attempted slander against anti-spam services also (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Look what I got yesterday (with forged headers):

    ---- quote --------------
    Dear Internet user.

    We are an organization dedicated to stopping spam. Please help us as we are
    funded solely by private donations.

    visit www.spamcop.net for full details. Or you can send your donations to:

    Julian Haight
    PO Box 25732
    Seattle, WA
    98125-1232

    As you can see by this message unsolicited e-mail is an invasion of your
    privacy. As you can also see it can be sent anonymously

    We will continue our efforts until all spam is elimina

  • Read privacy policies. Keep a spam magnet e-mail address for those web sites that have poor or nonexistent policies.

    I read the privacy policy of any website before providing them with my e-mail address. If it looks at all like they might give it to third parties for advertising purposes, or post it on a website in the clear, or put me on lists where it's not clear I can opt out at any time, then I don't give it. If I must, then I give them my old Yahoo e-mail address, which already gets 20-1 spam, because

  • education of the people buying the stuff (Score:4, Insightful)

    by martin ( 1336 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `cesxam'> on Monday November 10, 2003 @08:07AM (#7433327) Journal
    The problem isn't so much the spammers, it's the people buying from them.

    If people didn't buy the spammers wouldn't have a market and would go away.

    The issue is to educate the general internet populus that are are merely encouring the spam by purchasing from the advertisers.

  • It sucks, but... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by falsified ( 638041 )
    People are going to have to stop using email. With the vast majority of internet users using some sort of instant messaging program, it's easy to get ahold of a person on the internet. In the instances that a more formal message must be sent, we can use radical new solutions such as the postal service. Fixing SMTP won't work, a new protocol won't work, banning spam won't work, a tax on email is uncollectible and WON'T WORK.

    In an unrelated rant, my username is a normal English word and my domain is a popular

    • Earth to Pablo...I don't know your circumstances but suffice it to say that, from your post, you're enjoying some separation from reality.

      Stop using email? Are you serious? Try selling that idea to the many folks who rely daily on email to accomplish whatever it is they wish to see completed. Business, academia, personal - you name it. And where do you get your stats that the "vast majority" of users use IM's? Not a flame-fest but your post reeks of being out-of-touch.

      • "Vast majority" may be too strong. I would say that the vast majority, however, does at the very least have access to instant messaging programs. And email is NOT necessary. A phone call (or IM) can do just as well. Let's not forget that the internet wasn't a part of the average American's life until about five or ten years ago. Survival and email are separable. I'm not calling for a definite end to email, but come on. With the amount of spam email approaching 80% and showing definite signs of increasing, t
  • On January 1, California's new anti-spam law goes into effect. This has several key features. First, the default penalty for spamming is $1000 per spam. Second, anyone can sue, including in small claims court. Third, you can sue the "beneficiary" of the spam, the business being advertised.

    This should result in a tide of small suits against big companies. Any company that has some presence in California can be sued easily. Suing out-of-state companies may be possible; it's a "long-arm" statute.

    Our

  • I hope to God that this doesn't mean the volunteers run around wearing brightly colored spandex.
  • Steve Linford has posted a couple of corrections to the article [google.com]. The Usenet article follows:

    From: Steve Linford <linford@spamhaus.org>
    Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.email
    Subject: Re: Spamhaus in the New York Times
    Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 18:18:04 +0000
    Organization: The Spamhaus Project
    Message-ID: <linford-322705.18180310112003@news.supernews.com>
    References: <rbnsqvsesdq5pq0jkqpl8o2mm65rjbj8qq@4ax.com> <7udtqvog72ndachspbeodnm07s5q1tla1r@4ax.com>
    User -Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.3

Slashdot Top Deals

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Close