Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Spam Businesses Your Rights Online Hardware

IronPort Arms Both Sides In Spam War 216

Posted by timothy from the and-get-outta-the-way dept.
securitas writes "We all know about IronPort's recent acquisition of SpamCop. What may not be common knowledge is that IronPort's Senderbase has 'the reputation as the fastest way to send millions of junk e-mail messages' and is popular with spam factories. Founded by two former Microsoft executives - Hotmail's Scott Weiss and ListBot founder Scott Banister - IronPort claims its customers are not spammers but legitimate marketers. Critics say that this is a clear conflict of interest. Playing spam from both sides might be likened to a pharmaceutical company enabling the spread of a disease in order to sell the cure. SpamCop founder Julian Haight - who had to sell the company in order to remain solvent - is quoted as saying of IronPort's anti-spam measures: "I am not sure all its standards are tough enough." The story was originally reported by the New York Times' Saul Hansell. Abbreviated mirror at IHT."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IronPort Arms Both Sides In Spam War More

IronPort Arms Both Sides In Spam War

Comments Filter:

  • But after their extensive training ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by burgburgburg ( 574866 ) <splisken06NO@SPAMemail.com> on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @04:50PM (#7621783)
    in business ethics while employed at Microsoft, I am incapable of believing that the owners of Ironport would ever do anything to hurt the general public simply to make an obscene profit.

    • Re:But after their extensive training ... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by mandalayx ( 674042 ) * on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @04:56PM (#7621853) Journal
      IronPort, which is private and backed by venture capital, expects to turn its first profit next year on revenue of more than $10 million. It was founded by Mr. Weiss, who worked at Hotmail, the free e-mail provider, and Scott Banister, who founded ListBot, a service that lets companies manage e-mail lists. Both companies were acquired by Microsoft.

      Actually the article leads me to believe that these guys are not MS-bred.

      • MS-bred?!? (Score:5, Funny)

        by burgburgburg ( 574866 ) <splisken06NO@SPAMemail.com> on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @05:06PM (#7621961)
        I understand what you're trying to say here, but I find that image to be a bit much. MS-bred? Last I checked, Bill and Steve haven't as of yet instituted a breeding program to ensure a steady supply of new Microsofties (though that might be the plot to that new movie "Paycheck").

        Everyone in the Microsoft thrall volunteered. Weiss and Banister signed their names in blood to Microsoft contracts. At some point, Dark Lord Ballmer will come with the Blue Screen of Death and collect from them. That is the way of things, at least until Frodo Torvald is able to throw the closed-source ring of power back into Mount Redmond where is was forged ...wait, it's time for my medicine again, isn't it?

    • I thought the same thing after the Scientoligists sued to shut down the Cult Awareness Network and re-opened it as branch of their church.
    • No, I think they're just taking a cue from the good 'ol U.S. Federal government...

      Ba' dum' ching!

  • Well now (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    SpamCop founder Julian Haight - who had to sell the company in order to remain solvent - is quoted as saying of IronPort's anti-spam measures: "I am not sure all its standards are tough enough."

    And IronPort's response? "Obviously his business sense was not strong enough, or he wouldn't have solvency issues."

  • Conspiracy. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @04:52PM (#7621807) Homepage Journal

    Yes, I know a lot of what I write makes it sound like my tinfoil hat is loose but hear me out:

    IronPort buys SpamCop

    Worms hammer anti-spam sites [slashdot.org]

    Because IronPort is now "spammer friendly", SpamCop doesn't suffer these DDoS attacks.

    SpamCop's for-fee competition and free lists are ran off the net by IronPort supporters.

    Not suprisingly, IronPort's products don't block mail from their customers.

    IronPort and it's spammer customers profit.

    • That would make sense... if Spamcop wasn't one of the targets. Check Symantec's advisory [sarc.com]; SpamCop is on the list. The only reason SpamCop isn't being phased too badly is because they've been Akamai-ized, thanks to IronPort paying for it. Now, this isn't to say that IronPort did all of that to cover their tracks, but by no means is SpamCop being spared by the spammers.

  • The Analogy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mgcsinc ( 681597 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @04:52PM (#7621812)
    The analogy needs to be furthered a bit: this would be like a pharmaceutical company not only spreading that which they themselves sell the cure for, but above it all, that cure being phony, so that the market for the cure is maintained. Think, do you think IronPort's spam protection measures will stop their own supported spam? This reminds me of a bond-type plot where evil villains pay an evil company to let them continue ravaging the world. Even though this obviously would only last so long in the pharmaceutical industry, I'd call it a feasible, profitable, and despicable practice for the e-mail industry, with all the sources of spam floating around.

    • Real world examples? (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      This practice (of selling "pro" and "anti" products) is accepted in other markets. Not saying it's right, just saying it happens:

      1)The telephone companies sell Caller ID *and* CallerID-block.
      2) Supermarkets sell SlimFast AND chocolate doughnuts. Mmmmmm. Doughnuts.

      More examples, anyone?
      • This practice (of selling "pro" and "anti" products) is accepted in other markets. Not saying it's right, just saying it happens: 1)The telephone companies sell Caller ID *and* CallerID-block. 2) Supermarkets sell SlimFast AND chocolate doughnuts. Mmmmmm. Doughnuts.

        However, in both your examples, the store/seller can exist without both of these services, they are just "sugar" for their cashflow. In the case of IronPort, if their cashflow is *only* spam and anti-spam, when the market disappears, they're

    • Re:The Analogy (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Chalybeous ( 728116 ) <chalybeous@@@yahoo...co...uk> on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @05:01PM (#7621923) Homepage Journal

      Despicable is right.
      IMHO, spam is spam whether it's from a legitimate marketer or not - unless I have indicated that I wish to receive information (special offers, order status, terms of service updates) from the sender, whether they're selling books, parts, or e-transaction services.

      I also concede that there is a minor loophole, inasmuch as companies with whom I hold an account (e.g. eBay UK, PayPal, Amazon.co.uk) should be free to send certain important mails relating to things like my membership status, or any important and major changes to their ToS.
      However, since they're not the sort of companies I'd expect to go through spam houses, I'd understand that if they did contact me without my consent, they'd have a pretty darn good reason.

      How long til some IronPort customer dies from popping bootleg Viagra, or is fleeced out of his savings by a bunch of Nigerians pulling a 419? Some of those people will be clueless, and will think that because it's come through the spam filter, it must be legitimate...

      Jailarity ensu-- no, wait, that would be for a Fark story :-P

    • Re:The Analogy (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mandalayx ( 674042 ) *
      The analogy needs to be furthered a bit: this would be like a pharmaceutical company not only spreading that which they themselves sell the cure for, but above it all, that cure being phony, so that the market for the cure is maintained. Think, do you think IronPort's spam protection measures will stop their own supported spam? This reminds me of a bond-type plot where evil villains pay an evil company to let them continue ravaging the world. Even though this obviously would only last so long in the pharma

      • Re:The Analogy (Score:2, Interesting)

        by letxa2000 ( 215841 )
        What about the companies that are exclusively anti-spam? Maybe they don't even have to have a spamming component... The point is that whether or not a company does the "right" thing is the important thing, not whether it offers x product.

        Despite the fact that we now often see certain anti-spam products being promoted in, of all things, spam, I'd like to believe that most anti-spam offerings are honestly interested in reducing spam for their customers.

        We offer an anti-spam service which has been very, v


    • Actually, pharmaceutical companies do create'diseases' [bmjjournals.com] to sell more of their products.
      Isn't corporate capitalism wonderful?

    • Re:The Analogy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dasmegabyte ( 267018 ) <das@OHNOWHATSTHISdasmegabyte.org> on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @05:53PM (#7622455) Homepage Journal
      You know, I don't think this a conflict of interest at all. Ironport's a software company that specializes in email software. They sell a program with a legitimate use (delivering email to multiple recepients). They can not assure that their software won't be used for a less legitimate use (delivering email to multiple UNWILLING recepients). Nor would most of us want them to -- how many of you have rallied against the sort of restrictive licensing that defines how you can and how you can't use a piece of software? So, Ironport buys a faltering company that has a product which reduces the damage caused by abuse of their product.

      This is not like releasing a disease, and then releasing a cure. It's like creating a drug, seeing that it's commonly abused, and then using your abilities to help curb this abuse. Drug companies do this all the time. Sure, they make a little money off of it. But it's not the grand conspiracy you're trying to make it out to be.

      Think of it, man. Ford Motor Company makes Mustangs that go fast. They make Crown Vics that go faster. That way, when people make the Mustangs go WAY too fast, the cops have a way to catch them. Does this mean that Ford has a conflict of interest that prevents them from selling slower cars to the police...that they're purposefully pushing these fast cars to push sales of their cop cars?

      Or does it mean that they're a company that's specialized in cars, and that they therefore try to make cars that fulfill the needs of specific people, including people who like to go fast and the guys tasked to catch them?
  • "And just one of these 'rocks' could solve this war in an instant....if we weren't selling it to both sides"

  • It has to be said... (Score:4, Funny)

    by i_r_sensitive ( 697893 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @04:54PM (#7621832)
    Nothing like having your SPAM and eating it too!

  • A wolf in the flock (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tuxedo Jack ( 648130 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @04:55PM (#7621848) Homepage
    Since IronPort has access to SpamCop's filters now, they could hypothetically engineer a method around them or just kill the product entirely - or make it so that only they could bypass it, and any other spams sent from elsewhere would be blocked.

    Arming the wolf with the shepherd's crook? More like giving him an M-249.
    • Alternately, they could charge for the service of whitelisting a spammer or decreasing his Spaminess score. This would be great for them because it wouldn't be useful to simply copy their list, because you'll get more responses if you buy their service, too.
    • It certainly *could* happen. You let me know when/if it *does* and then we'll have something to talk about.

      -=Julian=-

  • Prior Act .. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AftanGustur ( 7715 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @04:56PM (#7621858) Homepage


    Playing spam from both sides might be likened to a pharmaceutical company enabling the spread of a disease in order to sell the cure.

    Or it could be compared to Chaplin's film The Kid [classicvideo.ch] :

    The Tramp rescues a baby abandoned by its despairing mother, brings it up to become his partner in a window-repair business - although it is the Kid's business to break the windows first

    • "The Tramp rescues a baby abandoned by its despairing mother, brings it up to become his partner in a window-repair business - although it is the Kid's business to break the windows first"

      Glad to see the Roman fire brigade still alive and well, and doing business...

    • or it's like virus scanner companies that write viruses or drug companies that create drug treatments but not cures.
    • Playing spam from both sides might be likened to a pharmaceutical company enabling the spread of a disease in order to sell the cure

      This reminds me of an oldish but interesting discussion I had about lawyers and representing yourself in court (pro se).
      If some guy uses a lawyer on you, you may also need a lawyer, in a way having a lawyer take care of the problems another lawyer made. (Members of one "guild" making work for each other.) This only applies to borderline barratry and frivoulous suits against t

  • Question... (Score:4, Funny)

    by tonyr60 ( 32153 ) * on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @04:56PM (#7621862)
    So IronPort make both Spam mailers and anti-spam products.

    Will they use their spam mailer expertise to make better anti-spam products, or use their anti-spam expertise to make better spam emailer products?

    Why do I think I know the answer aleady.....

  • It could be good (Score:2, Informative)

    by Tool Man ( 9826 )
    Spamcop could improve what is already good filtering, by automatically blocking crap from IronPort's SenderBase clients.

    "All your SenderBase are belong to us."

  • I'll say it again... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dave21212 ( 256924 ) <dav@spamcop.net> on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @04:57PM (#7621880) Homepage Journal

    I said this before and I'll say it again...

    There is a huge incentive for IronPort to stay on the legitimate side of things. Spamcop rocks (thanks Julian!) - but only because of the constant vigilance of the many users who report instances of spam. This is a human-based review system of millions of junk messages... without the users, there is no Spamcop, and Ironport bought nothing. They can't afford to risk being the bad guy here or they risk losing the reviewers !
    • There is a huge incentive for IronPort to stay on the legitimate side of things. Spamcop rocks (thanks Julian!) - but only because of the constant vigilance of the many users who report instances of spam. This is a human-based review system of millions of junk messages... without the users, there is no Spamcop, and Ironport bought nothing. They can't afford to risk being the bad guy here or they risk losing the reviewers !

      Not Flamebait.

      We've seen an example of a national leader citing poorly substantiat

      • All conspiracies aside, the people who use spamcop (look at my *unobfuscated* email addy) are typically rabid anti-spammers... check out the newsgroups under spamcop.net [spamcop.net] !

        Any hint of impropriety and these helpers are gone...
    • So maybe they don't code it so all their customer's spam gets through. Maybe only 10%. Or 1%. Or 0.01%. Whatever, it would still be a big number considering how much spam gets sent around each day.

    • This is a human-based review system of millions of junk messages... without the users, there is no Spamcop, and Ironport bought nothing.

      They didn't buy nothing, they bought the death of Spamcop. If IronPort really is dependent upon spammers, then such a buyout makes a lot of sense from a business standpoint.

      If this turns out to be the case, you can thank Julian again, for selling out the constant vigilance of many users to the highest bidder.


      • I don't think that's the case, but if it is, then I sincerely hope that Julian didn't sign any NDA/compete clauses - he could just start the whole thing over from scratch !
        • Man, you are just twelve kinds of optimistic, aren't you? Let's review - noted spam software supplier buys anti-spam service supplier. I'm sorry, I just don't see an up side here.

          How is this different from Microsoft buying out some small business to acquire their technology?

          • I've been a Spamcop user for years (see above unobfuscated email) and participated in or have read the associated newsgroups (where the fun really is) for as long. The system just doesn't work unless the 'users' are reporting Spam regularly and in a timely manner (hours, not days). These people are rabid anti-spam and would scream bloody murder if there was a site under IronPort that was spamming and it wasn't being handled.

            My optimisim comes from the absence of those screams since June when the deal w

            • Re:I'll say it again... (Score:2, Informative)

              by felicity ( 870 )
              Their product is basically a highly optimized MTA with built-in personalization capabilities. As far as I know, the box is just a "standard" server-class PC. Probably running BSD or Linux.

              The personalization stuff is basically the ability to give, say, 1000 email addresses and a message, and also some macro values (first name, last name, etc,) for each address. If the MTA connects successfully, it rewrites the message on the fly for delivery. The big upshot here is that you don't need to submit each i

    • Re:I'll say it again... (Score:3, Informative)

      by GSloop ( 165220 )
      Spamcop doesn't rock.

      It's configuration of spamassassin isn't very good IMHO.

      Quite a bit of spam still gets through.

      I've seen much better implimentations of spamassassin elsewhere. And no, they're not just one off site specific implimentations.

      I'm sorry if I've dissed Julian - I'm not sure who's responsible for the technical setup.

      Spamcop used to be incredible. The last couple of years hasn't been so hot.

      Frankly, I'd recommend other filtering options. (Like getting your webhosting/email from totalchoi

  • better analogy (Score:2, Interesting)

    by isfuglen ( 714922 )
    It's kind of like the diet industry. You try the newest hottest spam killer that will guarantee getting rid of all the spam, like trying the newest hottest diet that will guarantee getting rid of all the kilos. You lose the spam like you lose the kilos, and then, after a few months, it all comes back twofold. So you try the next newest hottest spam killer, the next newest hottest diet, blah blah, it comes back threefold. Then you try the next...(ad nauseum)

  • Julian Haight's comments not about SpamCop (Score:3, Informative)

    by jc103 ( 618410 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @04:59PM (#7621897)
    But Haight, who will stay with company, says he is concerned that the Bonded Sender program is too lenient. "I am not sure all its standards are tough enough," he said.

    His comment was about Bonded Sender [bondedsender.com], not SpamCop [spamcop.net].

  • But that's okay! Because there'll be a really hot girl involved and Tom Cruise will show up with all sorts of slow-mo walk-bys, acrobatic insanities, and lots of doves being scared up into the air from off camera by John Woo...

    Right...?

  • Helpdesk employees? (Score:4, Funny)

    by msimm ( 580077 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @05:01PM (#7621921) Homepage
    Hotmail helpdesk #1: Dude, spam is big business.
    Hotmail helpdesk #2: Ya, I bet someone could make a killing off an anti-spam service.
    Hotmail helpdesk #1: Sure, but spammers are legitimate marketers too.
    Hotmail helpdesk #2: Dude I know, their just trying to get their message out.
    .
    ..
    .
    2000 - IronPort founded
    .
  • This goes back to the recent law passed by congress (discussed here [slashdot.org] ) that failed to define spam as all unsolicited mass emails. Until we can get politicians to pass a law defining spam to be what we all know it to be, there isn't anything we can do about obvious conflicts of interest like this except gripe.

    But if that happened, what would happen to /.?

  • I guess a few bugs still need to be worked out.

  • This reminds me of a certain episode ... (Score:4, Funny)

    by rcastro0 ( 241450 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @05:07PM (#7621971) Homepage
    PINKY: Gee, Brain, what do you wanna do tonight?

    BRAIN: The same thing we do every night,Pinky!
    Try to take over the world!
    {Pinky and the Brain theme}

    BRAIN: Email messages, Pinky, is our new tool! We will take over computers with trojan horses, send spam from there, and then we will sell everyone Anti-Spam... for what it's worth !

    PINKY: What if they don't buy your anti-Spam, Brain?

    BRAIN: Even better ! We will scare the people off the internet, leaving their connected PCs behind! This in turn will give us more hosts from which to send Spam. We will then have taken over the world!

    PINKY: Egad, Brain, Brilliant! Oh, oh, wait, no, no -- why would they be scared of us? We're so small, um, we're practically the size of mice, Brain!

    BRAIN: We *are* mice, Pinky.

    PINKY: Oh, right. Well, there you are then. Nya-ha-ha!

  • change in spamcop reporting (Score:4, Interesting)

    by kurt555gs ( 309278 ) <<kurt555gs> <at> <ovi.com>> on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @05:08PM (#7621985) Homepage
    I use Squirrelmail, and one of the options is to use Spamcop (report as spam)

    In he last few days, when you process your spamcop response, I have noticed that instead of sending the notices to the usual "abuse@comcast.net" it is simply /dev/null'ing everything.

    I was wondering about this.

    Has anyone else noticed funny things going on in SpamCop?

    • Has anyone else noticed funny things going on in SpamCop?

      Yes, their RBL server, bl.spamcop.net, can't be found since Monday for me and many other people.

      There have been some posts on the mailing lists about it, but no real responses.

    • Some organisations that receive spam reports either have wrong contact information or ignore the spam reports. If spamcop sends lots of reports and they bounce (bad email address) or are ignored (e.g. the ISP doesn't like receiving (munged) spamcop reports and has told spamcop not contact it or the ISP never does anything with them) then the report goes to /dev/null but a record is kept so that they can be statistically tracked.

    • The fact that they are listing on the DDOS list for the MiMail.L Virus [sarc.com] might have taken their servers offline.

  • SPAMcop (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mugnyte ( 203225 ) * on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @05:10PM (#7621999) Journal

    I see this as a single-minded business. SPAMcop wants to remove spammers by hunting down the true origins of mail it is told are illegitimate, or through filters. OTOH, it is owned by a company that teaches and sells mass-marketing schemes. This mass-marketer has competition, and thats exactly what SPAMcop will be going after. Bingo! You have a great model to improve your scores by showing actual tallies of improved responses from people using your lists or methods.

    However, there will be an easy way to detect this: If the companies that are sending the spam are ignored by SPAMcop and also part of their enterprise, we have the feared result. At the moment, I haven't seen any evidence of this posted anywhere. But I'm only one person.

    mug

  • Or like... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tokerat ( 150341 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @05:11PM (#7622010) Journal

    Critics say that this is a clear conflict of interest. Playing spam from both sides might be likened to a pharmaceutical company enabling the spread of a disease in order to sell the cure.
    You mean like writing viruses and then selling antivirus software?

    I think big business is starting to learn what step 2 is, and it's kind of frightening.
    1. Create inconvinience/problems.
    2. Sell products which eleminate the problem.
    3. Profit!
    What a shame the tech industry is becomming.

  • Playing Both Sides? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Roofus ( 15591 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @05:13PM (#7622040) Homepage
    You mean kind of like Verizon selling my phone number to telemarketers, and then trying to sell me anti-telemarketing services for a premium price?
    • Verizon (my local phone company) got my name wrong somehow when I signed up for my phone. So I was going to get it changed, until I got some junk mail (snail, not e) with that mispelled name on it. Hrm... interesting indeed. So now I know when Verizon sold my info to some telemarketers or whatever. Plus, when people call looking for Mr. Gandnee, I can say wrong number :-)
    • You laugh, but I think the regional Bells have done this very thing.

  • Legitimate blah blah (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Heem ( 448667 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @05:17PM (#7622069) Homepage Journal
    "IronPort claims its customers are not spammers but legitimate marketers."

    To me, any marketing related mail is spam. Another user may want to be marketed things that he is interested in, but not me, and I suspect the same of most users of any type of anti-spam solution.

    • Not always... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MadAnthony02 ( 626886 )

      Ironport's website mentions transaction confirmations [ironport.com] as one of the uses, and that is certainly legit... when I order stuff online, I like to get an email confirming it, telling me it's been shipped, ect.

      There are legitimate advertising emails. I buy alot of electronics, so I regularly get emails from companies I've bought stuff from in the past, and I'm glad I have - they have alerted me to some good sales.

      To me, there is a huge difference from me getting an email from Compgeeks, TigerDirect, eCost, o

  • Don't blame the technology (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JimDabell ( 42870 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @05:26PM (#7622169) Homepage

    When it's something like file sharing, everybody's keen to jump on the "don't blame the technology" bandwagon. After all, file sharing can be used legitimately, right?

    How is this any different? There are legitimate needs to send bulk mail aren't there? It's not only used by spammers is it?

    The only difference I can see is that spam is something techies collectively hate, and copyright is something a lot of people are ambivelant about. Let's be fair and apply the same standards! Arguments don't stand or fall based upon whether we like the people involved.

    • The difference is that P2P file sharing companies aren't in the business of stopping copyright infringment. There's nothing wrong with creating hardware which is useful for sending bulk mail. There's nothing wrong with creating software which is useful for stopping spam. Doing both, however, creates a conflict of interest. One of the two products will suffer from that conflict of interest. My guess is that it's going to be the spam blocking software, because selling hardware to spammers seems like it w

  • Krupp Arms (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DaRat ( 678130 ) * on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @05:26PM (#7622173)
    Reminds me of the story about Krupp Arms around the beginning of the 20th century. They sold armor and cannon/shells to most major naval powers:
    • They would first come out with a new improved armor that every navy power rushed to put on their ships since it was advertised as being impervious to existing shell technology.
    • Then, they'd come out with improved shells/cannon to defeat the improved armor. All navies would buy the new shells/cannon.
    • Then, they'd come out with Improved Armor Mk2 to defend against the improved shells/cannon. Navies would construct new ships with the Mk2 armor.
    • Then, Improved Shells/Cannon Mk2 would come out...
    • Isn't that pretty much the history of all warfare? Usually it goes the other way first though, with armor perpetually losing against better cannons/shells.
      • The difference is that Krupp Arms was supplying both the offensive and defensive components. It may have been improved shells/cannon first (it's been a long time), but the general gist holds.

  • Ethics. Never heard of it ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by crovira ( 10242 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @05:30PM (#7622205) Homepage
    Specially at M$ where its not enough to M$ to win but YOU have to lose.

    The only thing I'm happy about is that even Bill Gates will eventually die, just like the poorest Afghani. There is some comfort in that. Nobody lasts for ever.

    But if there is an after-life, I hope he has to use his own products to run a support-site for his own products for the rest of eternity.

  • I blame Scott Adams... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Comatose51 ( 687974 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @05:32PM (#7622216) Homepage
    He should have known that anyone worth their weight in the tech industry is going to read his strip. Unleashing an idea like that! What was he thinking?

    http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilb ert-20031129.html

    And good God, he's an AOL user!

  • Playing spam from both sides might be likened to a pharmaceutical company enabling the spread of a disease in order to sell the cure.

    Ironbase makes a computer that can be used to send lots of spam. They certainly don't "enable the spread of" spam.

    It would be more like if the creator of Kazaa sold software to catch copyright infringers, and claimed that Kazaa users are not copyright infringers but legitimate downloaders of legally distributable indie music.

  • Sounds familiar (Score:4, Informative)

    by Alizarin Erythrosin ( 457981 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @05:41PM (#7622307)
    Sounds like when that one phone company (I think it was AT&T) was selling technology to block telemarketers to consumers, and selling technology to get around technology to block telemarketers to telemarketers.

    And, as they say, hilarity ensues...
  • Gee.. and they have my email address...
    Would they? Could they?...give their collected mail addresses to their 'partners'/'customers'?

    10 Send report of spam to spamcop
    20 spam cop 'parters' spam you
    30 goto 10

  • Do you know anybody who works at Ironport? Write and say, "I heard you're a filthy spammer now! If you don't get a cut from the 419 scams, you're selling out too low.".

    I just found out that somebody I used to work with is there now, and that's what I'm going to do.

    (Yes, I do still have friends.)

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @06:05PM (#7622576)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • IronPort's not just for SPAM (Score:4, Informative)

    by Stultsinator ( 160564 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @06:16PM (#7622693)
    The company I work for is looking at using one of these boxes to send our opted-in newsletters. IronPort may be popular with spammers, but I have to agree that there are perfectly ethical reasons to send out millions of emails per day (per hour in fact!) The IronPort systems are by far the fastest mail servers around.
  • That Valentine research who makes radar detectors also made radar guns that the cops used.

    Don't know if they still do it but this was established last century.
  • So the question here is: are there alternatives to SpamCop if one wants to continue reporting spam and helping building spam reference corpii?
  • In the previous discussion about Ironport I asked [slashdot.org] about its reputation and whether or not I needed to start looking for a new email address, given that I'm a user of Spamcop. I will start moving everything away from Spamcop today.

  • Open proxies (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AchmedHabib ( 696882 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @06:43PM (#7622915)
    I don't know, isn't it a "traditional" mail sender/relay? Most spam these days comes via open proxies etc. A spammer operating with his own mail server like SenderBase would be blocked by all anti-spam lists fast and would not be effective for long.

    And lets not forget proper uses for the box. I sure would like an appliance box for handling the daily newsletters and etc. Sure it's fun to sit and tweak Postfix on a Linux box but if you were to setup a new system it might not be cheaper to build an entire system yourself, with the tuning, tweaking and scriptwriting, and the following maintainance like updates fixes etc.

  • senderbase (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LarryRiedel ( 141315 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @07:01PM (#7623088)
    What may not be common knowledge is that IronPort's Senderbase has 'the reputation as the fastest way to send millions of junk e-mail messages' and is popular with spam factories.

    Senderbase.org [senderbase.org] is an invaluable site for fighting spam, not a way to send junk email; it is a scourge for spam factories.

    Larry

  • It's a database [senderbase.org] that identifies high-volume email sources. So you could say Senderbase is pretty much neutral.

    These are also the people who came up with Bonded Sender [bondedsender.com] - a whitelist with an economic incentive to keep senders honest. So they're hardly new to the anti-spam world.

    The controversy seems to be over IronPort's hardware: they sell mail servers. Big friggin' whoop.

  • Cincinnati Microwave (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Hollins ( 83264 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @07:46PM (#7623505) Homepage
    I don't know if they still do, but for years, Cincinnati Microwave made both radar guns and radar detectors. They generated a technology war with better and better radar guns and more sensitive detectors. They seemed to have been very successful with this strategy.
  • I'm sorry I never paid for SpamCop. Dunno if it would have helped, but of late (the last two months) the spamming has only gotten worse. I've had to implement the very hard to use AT&T Worldnet whitelist. It doesn't use your email address book. You have to enter each address one at a time. Nor does it bounce back to let you know your email is blocked (when testing the filter from another account). I guess it's time to check out SpamAssassin.
  • As a longtime SpamCop customer, I now want to find an alternative. Nobody here seems to have any suggestions.

    SpamCop owned by IronPort can't be anything like SpamCop is now. All the real work on SpamCop is done by volunteers. Nobody is going to volunteer their time for IronPort.

  • Some Clarifications from Julian (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Haight6716 ( 14846 ) * on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @09:51PM (#7624523) Homepage
    Hi, this is Julian, the long-time owner of SpamCop.net. I must say I was a bit dissapointed in the NYT coverage of this.

    First of all, I was not *forced* to sell SpamCop to remain solvent. I am proud of the fact that I have been profitable since 1999. If anything, this deal makes SpamCop a charity case within Ironport. I still get paid of course ;)

    The NYT article quotes me as saying (referring back to my dead-tree version): "After a while, I found that this had become a job, and I had to find a way to make money from it". That quote was taken out of context - I was referring to my 1999 decision to take SpamCop commercial, not my 2003 decision to sell the *profitable* company to ironport.

    It is true that the akamai bill is not cheap. But I think I would have survived the same way I have always done without selling the business. And that leads to my next point - I'm not cashing out. I will be with the company for the forseeable future, doing what I have always done - fighting spam! I sold it to ironport because I felt they would support my goals. They offered me a nice lump of cash, help with the non-spam-fighting part of the job (sysadmin, administrivia, lawyering, DDoS protection, etc.) and most important, a credible promise to let me keep it on-track.

    The very fact that I am here talking about this, and expressing my doubts about bonded sender to the NYT should indicate that I'm not just rolling over here.

    I don't control the bonded sender program and likewise the people who control it won't be calling the shots where SpamCop is concerned.

    Oh, and BTW, I know ironport boxes are good for spamming. They're also good for sending (and also receiving) tons of legitimate mail. Noone with ironport has ever claimed that "our customers aren't spammers". Some might claim our *bonded sender members* aren't spammers, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.

    Are we arming both sides? Sure! But as with all arms dealers, the real point is that we make the best weapons on the market! Don't like spam from ironport customers? Use the spamcop blacklist! If this were really some big conspiracy, would spamazon's IP be in both the spamcop blacklist and the ironport whitelist?

    $ host 207.171.188.101
    101.188.171.207.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer mm-outgoing-101.amazon.com.
    $ host 101.188.171.207.query.bondedsender.org
    101.188.17 1.207.query.bondedsender.org has address 127.0.0.10
    $ host 101.188.171.207.bl.spamcop.net
    101.188.171.207.bl .spamcop.net has address 127.0.0.2

    (Note, the blacklist changes quickly over time, it was listed when I wrote this) .. and here I was coming to slashdot to read the news and relax. Little did I know I'd be spending the next half hour writing this rebuttal ..

    -=Julian "10 hot comments" Haight=-

    • Sorry to ruin your evening by submitting the post! :)

      Seriously, have you spoken with the reporter about this? If it's any consolation I think I fairly summarized the article.
    • I'm very glad to see a statement from you, Julian, regarding this. I've been a customer since way back in the "how much fuel did I burn this month" days, and the headline caught my eye (and concern). As I have every reason, based on your reputation, to believe your word as truth, I am very glad to see your side of the story.

      Thanks for a great service, and know that your user base (at least, this particular user within it) appreciates you doing whatever it takes to uphold your high standards.

      Sure, the sp
  • Amazon is a member of IronPort's Bonded Sender program. I think that speaks for itself - Amazon is certainly a spammer, which casts a shadow of doubt on the Bonded Sender program as well as all of IronPort.
  • Also note the "Spam Farmers" [slashdot.org] post, where AT&T is promoting "viral marketing" as a benefit to developers of their new mMode service.
  • Why shouldn't the same company produce exploit code and the tools to combat it? It's common for security groups to do that.
  • Now Ironport knows who is reporting their activity to abuse admins around the world. Furthermore, they can now examine Spamcop's spam-fighting mechanisms. Also, they can easily leave one or two servers off of their blocklist now if they feel the need.

    It's probably good for Spamcop users, and bad for the rest of the world. As a Spamcop user, I intend not to renew my subscription next time around.

Slashdot Top Deals

We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. -- Patrick Moynihan

Close