«

Can anyone spot any fish-hooks in this suggestion to kill spam in its
tracks, or at least grind it into oblivion?

Everyone who hates spam (and who doesn't) should pledge that at least
once a day they will respond to a randomly selected unsolicited email
and follow the inevitable link to where-ever the purchase is made. They
will then place a reasonable order but supplying a false address and
credit card details.

Spammers depend on the fact that they can send out millions of email
offers a day and make money if only a dozen or so sales result. But they
couldn't cope with thousands of false responses burying those relatively
few genuine ones.

True, you would be likely to be revealing your email address as viable
and thus a target for more spam but you are also identifying yourself as
a dud purchaser, to be struck off any list.

If multitudes of ordinary folk spend a few seconds a day responding,
individually it would have little effect but collectively it would be
devastating to the spammers. And for every individual who can't be
bothered, I'm sure there will be some earnest soul keen to send off
several responses. In fact it may be possible to automate the process,
although no doubt the spammers would pretty soon set up some hoops to
jump through that make automation of false orders difficult, at least on
a grand scale.

Waddaya reckon guys?

--
Bluebottle
(Knee Polishing Badge, 2nd Class, East Finchley Boy Scouts)

wired had a similar concept

http://www.wired.com/news/infostruct...w=wn_tophead_2

basically go for the companies that advertise thru spam.

> Can anyone spot any fish-hooks in this suggestion to kill spam in its
> tracks, or at least grind it into oblivion?

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 09:51:40 +1300, Bluebottle
<> wrote:

>Everyone who hates spam (and who doesn't) should pledge that at least
>once a day they will respond to a randomly selected unsolicited email
>and follow the inevitable link to where-ever the purchase is made.

No I don't like the idea of responding to their spam.
But how about saving the link on a register and being nasty to whoever
owns that site?

Bluebottle wrote:
> If multitudes of ordinary folk spend a few seconds a day responding,
> individually it would have little effect but collectively it would be
> devastating to the spammers.
> Waddaya reckon guys?

spamming the spammers... well, an interesting idea.

--
Http://www.Dave.net.nz
Play Hangman
Register, and play Space Invaders or Pacman.

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 09:51:40 +1300, Bluebottle wrote:

> Can anyone spot any fish-hooks in this suggestion to kill spam in its
> tracks, or at least grind it into oblivion?

Kill the spammers and firebomb those who hire them.

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 09:51:40 +1300, Bluebottle wrote:

> Waddaya reckon guys?

Won't work:

a. The spammers usually just get aid for providing 'leads' - what happens
after that is of no interest to them.

b. These outfits usually have some form of automated web site and credit
cards. There would be little effort on their part to deal with 10,000 false
replies and false creditcard info would filter out the rest.

So unless you want to give them your REAL credit card number and then
reverse the charge...

I think the only solution is to charge heavily for spamming. E.g. more than
100 emails a day = $0.20 per email. Hit them in the pocket. A serious
spammer would have to start his own ISP to get around that = $$$ and then
every other ISP could block their IP number anyhow with something like RBL
(simple enough).

On a related note: I can see the same sort of system (RBL) for
spyware/adware sites.

--

.... Brendan

"Usenet is a right, a left, a jab, and a sharp uppercut to the jaw. The postman hits! You have new mail." -- Ed Vielmetti

Note: All comments are copyright 7/02/2004 12:10:24 p.m., and are opinion only where not otherwise stated, and always "to the best of my reccollection". www.computerman.orcon.net.nz.

In article <>,
Brendan <> wrote:

> Won't work:
>
> a. The spammers usually just get aid for providing 'leads' - what happens
> after that is of no interest to them.

But if you make life miserable for whoever they are supplying leads to,
eventually the spammers source of income dries up.

> b. These outfits usually have some form of automated web site and credit
> cards. There would be little effort on their part to deal with 10,000 false
> replies and false creditcard info would filter out the rest.

Somehow I can't imagine Visa, Mastercard, Amex etc NOT charging for a
trader to check that a number/name/address is valid. Even if it's only a
few cents each time the numbers would start to add up.


--
Bluebottle
(Knee Polishing Badge, 2nd Class, East Finchley Boy Scouts)

In article <c013cs$g6e$>,
"L33T" <> wrote:

> wired had a similar concept
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/infostruct...w=wn_tophead_2
>
> basically go for the companies that advertise thru spam.


And from Wired:

> Mitchell is an advocate of the new Can-Spam Act. She's particularly fond of
> Section 6, which she helped write. Bypassing issues like zombie computers
> and elusive spammers for hire, Section 6 targets the company whose product
> is being sold, not the spammer.


That's precisely it. I couldn't give a rats arse for the actual spammer,
it's whoever is paying him to send the stuff out I want nailed. No
irresponsible traders, no spam. And every one of those is easily
accessed otherwise they go out of business because their genuine
customers can't get to them.

I guess it all hangs on whether the banks charge to check if a card
number is valid. Anyone in the banking industry?

--
Bluebottle
(Knee Polishing Badge, 2nd Class, East Finchley Boy Scouts)

Bluebottle wrote:

> Everyone who hates spam (and who doesn't) should pledge that at least
> once a day they will respond to a randomly selected unsolicited email
> and follow the inevitable link to where-ever the purchase is made. They
> will then place a reasonable order but supplying a false address and
> credit card details.

Attempted fraud isn't something you want to be charged with......

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 12:03:23 +1300, T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz wrote:

> spamming the spammers... well, an interesting idea.

An old idea. Why do you think spammers usually forge addresses belonging
to people who recently complained about them?