OFF TOPIC but a good question I think.

First off, this is off topic of sorts, but is indirectly related to
repairing/supporting computers.

The Plan:

First off, I think everyone would agree that spam is a problem, both in
terms of spyware/adware, viruses that can be embedded, phishing schemes
galore, and a general threat to the health, and well being of a computer or
a computer network, and to ones personal information.
So, my question to everyone. Whereas the majority of the spam uses false
and deceptive headers, and whereas the spammer also tries to make it nearly
impossible to contact anyone from the website responsible for the spam. And
whereas the government has studied the idea of a "do not email"
registry--and considered that such a registry of millions and millions of
addresses could be compromised by a breach in network security, and
therefore gave the thumbs down to such a registry. An idea that struck me
last night was to form a "registry" myself, and intentionally leave such a
computer database of email addresses--which are fake obviously--completely
open to attack and set up the system(s) in such a fashion as to form a
honeypot of sorts--and trace and track those responsible for violating the
database and having them prosecuted under the various state and federal laws
which prohibit illegal entry into computers or networks.. I know a little
about computer security, but not enough to try such a plan.

Opinions--could such an idea be feasible, in terms of cost and
effectiveness, and if so--by what means could one set it up in such a way as
to maximize effectiveness and maintain the secrecy of the machines so as to
avoid detection and avoidance by the spammers who seek to flood our inboxes
daily with their uce/ube?

Again, this if off topic of sorts, but since it directly involves the
computers which we, the techs work hard to maintain--I felt it might be
prudent to pose such a question to everyone and see what the opinions were
on the matter.

me

"me" <> wrote in message
news:R07he.25368$.. .
> First off, this is off topic of sorts, but is indirectly related to
> repairing/supporting computers.
>
> The Plan:
>
> First off, I think everyone would agree that spam is a problem, both in
> terms of spyware/adware, viruses that can be embedded, phishing schemes
> galore, and a general threat to the health, and well being of a computer
> or
> a computer network, and to ones personal information.
> So, my question to everyone. Whereas the majority of the spam uses false
> and deceptive headers, and whereas the spammer also tries to make it
> nearly
> impossible to contact anyone from the website responsible for the spam.
> And
> whereas the government has studied the idea of a "do not email"
> registry--and considered that such a registry of millions and millions of
> addresses could be compromised by a breach in network security, and
> therefore gave the thumbs down to such a registry. An idea that struck me
> last night was to form a "registry" myself, and intentionally leave such a
> computer database of email addresses--which are fake obviously--completely
> open to attack and set up the system(s) in such a fashion as to form a
> honeypot of sorts--and trace and track those responsible for violating the
> database and having them prosecuted under the various state and federal
> laws
> which prohibit illegal entry into computers or networks.. I know a
> little
> about computer security, but not enough to try such a plan.
>
> Opinions--could such an idea be feasible, in terms of cost and
> effectiveness, and if so--by what means could one set it up in such a way
> as
> to maximize effectiveness and maintain the secrecy of the machines so as
> to
> avoid detection and avoidance by the spammers who seek to flood our
> inboxes
> daily with their uce/ube?
>
> Again, this if off topic of sorts, but since it directly involves the
> computers which we, the techs work hard to maintain--I felt it might be
> prudent to pose such a question to everyone and see what the opinions were
> on the matter.
>
>

Maybe I'm not following. And this generates income how? Who funds it?

--
Captain Lon

All your base are belong to us.

Captain Lon

no, I don't think it could generate income flow--my thought was merely to
fight back at the amount of spam--there are many aspects of the idea for
which opinions are greatly appreciated. If anyone had an idea as to how to
generate income flow from this project--or aspects I am
overlooking--opinions also appreciated on that.

me

"me" <> wrote in message
news:uU7he.24645$. ..
> no, I don't think it could generate income flow--my thought was merely to
> fight back at the amount of spam--there are many aspects of the idea for
> which opinions are greatly appreciated. If anyone had an idea as to how
> to
> generate income flow from this project--or aspects I am
> overlooking--opinions also appreciated on that.
>
>

Well, the reason I asked about generating income is that these sorts of
things take resources. There already exists agencies to enforce laws. I
don't like spam either, but don't know how spending time and money tracking
down the culprits is going to put much of a dent into it. It is bigger than
that. It is almost always international in nature. You must cooperation
between nations and laws in other countries are going to be different than
in yours. Privacy laws for example.

It appears to me that spamming is more of a nuisance than a serious
breaking of the law. At least it appears that is what law enforcement
thinks of it. It is akin to the US federal gov't attempting to put someone
on trial because they trespassed while in a foreign land. I mean, it is not
so clear cut.

Unless I am missing something here.

I am totally in favor of anyone doing whatever they can to stop it, but with
ways for a spammer to strip his emails of headers, there really is no way of
tracking them down. They also morph so often you can't keep them out of
your email inbox once they have your email address.

Keep thinking though. I don't want to discourage you. Perhaps others can
shed more light on this as I try to understand the subject more myself.
--
Captain Lon

All your base are belong to us.

Captain Lon

me (millinium edition?) wrote: > You may wonder if that attitude still
holds true.
> http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/20...0411029954.htm

Good article. I especially liked the comments various people made at the
bottom. My favorite was this:

<quote>"I get annoyed by spam, too. But 9 years in prison? Give me a break.
This guy ANNOYED a bunch of people. The morning DJ on the local rock station
does that everyday and I don't see him getting arrested.

Maybe they can let a rapist out to make room for Mr. Jaynes.

Sending email from a fake address, fine the based on how much money he made.
Prison is an over-reaction." <end of qoute>


--
Captain Lon

All your base are belong to us.



"Billy" <> wrote in message
news:n4dhe.307$ .net...
>
> "Captain Lon" <> wrote in message
> news:ZO8he.633$5m1.307@trnddc06...
>>
>>
>>
>> "me" <> wrote in message
>> news:uU7he.24645$. ..
>> > no, I don't think it could generate income flow--my thought was
> merely to
>> > fight back at the amount of spam--there are many aspects of the idea
> for
>> > which opinions are greatly appreciated. If anyone had an idea as to
> how
>> > to
>> > generate income flow from this project--or aspects I am
>> > overlooking--opinions also appreciated on that.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Well, the reason I asked about generating income is that these sorts
> of
>> things take resources. There already exists agencies to enforce laws.
> I
>> don't like spam either, but don't know how spending time and money
> tracking
>> down the culprits is going to put much of a dent into it. It is
> bigger than
>> that. It is almost always international in nature. You must
> cooperation
>> between nations and laws in other countries are going to be different
> than
>> in yours. Privacy laws for example.
>>
>> It appears to me that spamming is more of a nuisance than a serious
>> breaking of the law. At least it appears that is what law enforcement
>> thinks of it. It is akin to the US federal gov't attempting to put
> someone
>> on trial because they trespassed while in a foreign land. I mean, it
> is not
>> so clear cut.
>>
>
> You may wonder if that attitude still holds true.
> http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/20...0411029954.htm
>
>
>> Unless I am missing something here.
>>
>> I am totally in favor of anyone doing whatever they can to stop it,
> but with
>> ways for a spammer to strip his emails of headers, there really is no
> way of
>> tracking them down. They also morph so often you can't keep them out
> of
>> your email inbox once they have your email address.
>>
>> Keep thinking though. I don't want to discourage you. Perhaps others
> can
>> shed more light on this as I try to understand the subject more
> myself.
>> --
>> Captain Lon
>>
>> All your base are belong to us.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Captain Lon

Barry wrote: > The problem is that 25% to 50% of ***ALL*** E-Mail is now
"spam". I
> know I get a couple hundred messages a day that I have to deal with.
>
> It is a problem which has gotten way beyond an "annoyance".
>


If ISP's start charging, say, 10 cents to send an email, imagine how much
spam we will get then? It will go up about 100 fold, as they will use all
of their marketing skills to get companies to pay them to send spam.
Instead of now complaining about it, they will encourage it.

It think the same may be true of fining spammers. I don't know where the
fine money should go, but if it actually goes to the ISP's and others that
it costs money to actually deal with the problem, than it may not DISCOURAGE
spamming, but may actually have an opposite effect. ISP's and others would
no longer mind dealing with spam if it becomes a profit center for them.

So, in that sense it is an annoyance at this point. However, an expensive
annoyance for others.

Think of your snail mail. How much crap do you get in your mailbox? Tons I
bet. This is because the US postal service CHARGES to send mail. In fact,
if you send in bulk you get a discount! This ENCOURAGES sending crap to
postal customers.

I think we need to be sure that sending spam is not profitable. It is
always the profit motive behind these things, right? So, the question is,
how do you deal with it, how do you take away the profit from these
activities?

--
Captain Lon

All your base are belong to us.



"Barry Watzman" <> wrote in message
news:...
> While I might agree with you that 9 years in prison is not an appropriate
> sentence, he did much more than annoy people.
>
> Say he sent the spam to 100 million people, and that each person took 20
> seconds to deal with it. His actions "consumed" over 500,000 man-hours,
> and many of those people were, literally, on someone else's payroll. That
> doesn't even touch on the bandwidth consumed, or the terabytes of
> aggregate storage that 100 million copies of his message might have
> required.
>
> The problem is that 25% to 50% of ***ALL*** E-Mail is now "spam". I know
> I get a couple hundred messages a day that I have to deal with.
>
> It is a problem which has gotten way beyond an "annoyance".
>
>
> Captain Lon wrote:
>
>> me (millinium edition?) wrote: > You may wonder if that attitude still
>> holds true.
>>
>>>http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/20...0411029954.htm
>>
>>
>> Good article. I especially liked the comments various people made at the
>> bottom. My favorite was this:
>>
>> <quote>"I get annoyed by spam, too. But 9 years in prison? Give me a
>> break. This guy ANNOYED a bunch of people. The morning DJ on the local
>> rock station does that everyday and I don't see him getting arrested.
>>
>> Maybe they can let a rapist out to make room for Mr. Jaynes.
>>
>> Sending email from a fake address, fine the based on how much money he
>> made. Prison is an over-reaction." <end of qoute>
>>

Captain Lon

"Captain Lon" <> wrote in message
news:Kqqhe.3950$x85.3043@trnddc01...
> me (millinium edition?) wrote: > You may wonder if that attitude still
> holds true.
>> http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/20...0411029954.htm
>
> Good article. I especially liked the comments various people made at the
> bottom. My favorite was this:
>
> <quote>"I get annoyed by spam, too. But 9 years in prison? Give me a
> break. This guy ANNOYED a bunch of people. The morning DJ on the local
> rock station does that everyday and I don't see him getting arrested.
>
> Maybe they can let a rapist out to make room for Mr. Jaynes.
>
> Sending email from a fake address, fine the based on how much money he
> made. Prison is an over-reaction." <end of qoute>
>
>
> --
> Captain Lon
>
I must be feeling real negative tonight but I have to disagree with you.
I used to work for a small ISP. We spent about $300 to $1000 a month on
junk mail removal and prevention. That's money that should have gone into
the owners pockets. When junk mail became so heavy we had to build a new
mail server for $1,000 to $3,000. There wasn't anything wrong with the old
server except that it couldn't handle the junk mail load.
If you multiply the money we spent by all the little and big ISP type
businesses then you start seeing that junk mail IS a problem and if even one
person is stopped from a career as a mass mailer then it's worth 9 years of
a criminal's life.

AG

AG

ok, I might be wrong here--but this mass mailing--aka spam is a nusiance at
best and a serious threat to computers and networks, and perhaps even
national security at worst. Many laws have been passed--among them Can Spam
Act of 2003(which I disagreed with because it did nothing to really address
spam at the root level, but it did legalize it for those willing to follow
the rule established in the act)--everyone would agree I think that a viable
alternative to spam prevention has not been discovered yet. I think the
first issue is to address spam at its very root core--the companies on the
web who hire these mass marketeers to send out their email communications.
I think also that everyone would agree that everyone has the right to free
speech and to make a living. I have no issue with this. However, I think
that when spammers intentionally avoid repeated "opt out" requests, and
continue in violation of the users wishes to spam them--then they cross a
very fine line and should be punished. I think the first thing would be to
pass some common sense legislation that addresses the issue at the core--the
companies who hire mass marketeers in the first place. Companies who are
represented in their spam emails should have a monetary stake involved which
would motivate them to hire only legitmate individuals who work within the
established framework of the law. Those companies who do not--and who
choose to spam in violation should be fined heavy--$5,000--$10,000 for the
first offense for example, and subsequent penalties of $5,000--$10,000 per
day per spam email sent, and provide also for a term of confinement for the
executives or owner, for example that could range between 30 days and 2
years, plus court costs, attorney fees, seizure of their equipment and
forfeiture of all monies gained through the use of spam, and also a term of
supervised probation wherein they must work with individuals and
corporations to help in the reduction of spam. Also, provide penalties for
the mass marketeers that include a minimum of 30 days confinement for each
offense and $15,000 per day per email sent in violation of the established
framework, and seizure of their equipment and forfeiture of all funds
received as payment. Perhaps a special court could be set up,. and a
special prosecutor hired that would deal only with cases of spam and
violations of the established laws to help prevent spam. Also, instead of
placing spammers in the general population of our already overcrowded
jails--set up special work farms that deal solely with the reduction of
spam--the development of new technologies to help fight spam and use the
fines imposed on the spammers--including the seizure of their equipment,
homes, funds and so forth to help fund the program. For who better to
fight spam than those who seek continually to find new ways to overcome the
technologies used to fight them? This way, they are not in the general
populations which worsen our already overcrowded and overburdened justice
system. The problem of spam won't be overcome I don't think until it
becomes completely unprofitable to send spam in an improper or illegitmate
manner.
Another idea would be to fine companies who fail to honor an opt-out
request. $25,000 for the first, and then $25,000 per day per email for each
subsequent violation. It would not take long for the companies to begin
honoring the requests.
Also, in addition, citizens need a manner in which they can pursue private
legal action against spammers--and where they can obtain judgements in their
favor--provided they can produce the emails and establish a case that they
have acted in good faith to ask the company in question to discontinue
sending them communication--to provide for judgements of not less than
$500.00 per email, and not more than $5,000 per email--in addition to any
action that could be brought in a criminal court.
When it is made so unprofitable to send spam--both on the companies and on
those who are directly responsible--then the spam flow will begin to cease
and I think will finally disappear altogether, because the spammers will get
wise eventually and will all either be put out of business or put in
jail--or will get legitimate jobs.
Also, all websites must contain legitimate contact information including
legitmate email addresses, a contact telephone number, and physical address
of their company. Websites who do not, or who try to hide or mask their
contact information, or WhoIs information can be shut down by the server
after a complaint is issued and properly investigated.
Also, all web-hosting companies must make every effort to ensure that all
contact information is legitimate and uptodate, and that those web-hosting
companies who fail in their responsibilities can also be fined up to $5,000
per day for each day the information is incorrect.
It has to be made so unprofitable to be an illegal spammer, and website
owner who hides their information that they all run for cover.
This idea is by no means perfect--I admit. There are many aspects which
could be changed or improved on--but its just an idea of mine.

me

The best idea I've ever heard for junk mail reduction is to offer a bounty
on them. There would be a fine of like $1,000 per mailing and $200 of that
would go to the person that tracked down the mass mailer.
It would put unemployed or underemployed techies and teenage hacker types to
work with and rid us of mass mailers.
I really wouldn't work because it makes too much sense.

AG


"me" <> wrote in message
news:LyAhe.30268$. ..
> ok, I might be wrong here--but this mass mailing--aka spam is a nusiance
> at
> best and a serious threat to computers and networks, and perhaps even
> national security at worst. Many laws have been passed--among them Can
> Spam
> Act of 2003(which I disagreed with because it did nothing to really
> address
> spam at the root level, but it did legalize it for those willing to follow
> the rule established in the act)--everyone would agree I think that a
> viable
> alternative to spam prevention has not been discovered yet. I think the
> first issue is to address spam at its very root core--the companies on the
> web who hire these mass marketeers to send out their email communications.
> I think also that everyone would agree that everyone has the right to free
> speech and to make a living. I have no issue with this. However, I think
> that when spammers intentionally avoid repeated "opt out" requests, and
> continue in violation of the users wishes to spam them--then they cross a
> very fine line and should be punished. I think the first thing would be
> to
> pass some common sense legislation that addresses the issue at the
> core--the
> companies who hire mass marketeers in the first place. Companies who are
> represented in their spam emails should have a monetary stake involved
> which
> would motivate them to hire only legitmate individuals who work within the
> established framework of the law. Those companies who do not--and who
> choose to spam in violation should be fined heavy--$5,000--$10,000 for the
> first offense for example, and subsequent penalties of $5,000--$10,000 per
> day per spam email sent, and provide also for a term of confinement for
> the
> executives or owner, for example that could range between 30 days and 2
> years, plus court costs, attorney fees, seizure of their equipment and
> forfeiture of all monies gained through the use of spam, and also a term
> of
> supervised probation wherein they must work with individuals and
> corporations to help in the reduction of spam. Also, provide penalties
> for
> the mass marketeers that include a minimum of 30 days confinement for each
> offense and $15,000 per day per email sent in violation of the established
> framework, and seizure of their equipment and forfeiture of all funds
> received as payment. Perhaps a special court could be set up,. and a
> special prosecutor hired that would deal only with cases of spam and
> violations of the established laws to help prevent spam. Also, instead of
> placing spammers in the general population of our already overcrowded
> jails--set up special work farms that deal solely with the reduction of
> spam--the development of new technologies to help fight spam and use the
> fines imposed on the spammers--including the seizure of their equipment,
> homes, funds and so forth to help fund the program. For who better to
> fight spam than those who seek continually to find new ways to overcome
> the
> technologies used to fight them? This way, they are not in the general
> populations which worsen our already overcrowded and overburdened justice
> system. The problem of spam won't be overcome I don't think until it
> becomes completely unprofitable to send spam in an improper or illegitmate
> manner.
> Another idea would be to fine companies who fail to honor an opt-out
> request. $25,000 for the first, and then $25,000 per day per email for
> each
> subsequent violation. It would not take long for the companies to begin
> honoring the requests.
> Also, in addition, citizens need a manner in which they can pursue
> private
> legal action against spammers--and where they can obtain judgements in
> their
> favor--provided they can produce the emails and establish a case that they
> have acted in good faith to ask the company in question to discontinue
> sending them communication--to provide for judgements of not less than
> $500.00 per email, and not more than $5,000 per email--in addition to any
> action that could be brought in a criminal court.
> When it is made so unprofitable to send spam--both on the companies and on
> those who are directly responsible--then the spam flow will begin to cease
> and I think will finally disappear altogether, because the spammers will
> get
> wise eventually and will all either be put out of business or put in
> jail--or will get legitimate jobs.
> Also, all websites must contain legitimate contact information including
> legitmate email addresses, a contact telephone number, and physical
> address
> of their company. Websites who do not, or who try to hide or mask their
> contact information, or WhoIs information can be shut down by the server
> after a complaint is issued and properly investigated.
> Also, all web-hosting companies must make every effort to ensure that all
> contact information is legitimate and uptodate, and that those web-hosting
> companies who fail in their responsibilities can also be fined up to
> $5,000
> per day for each day the information is incorrect.
> It has to be made so unprofitable to be an illegal spammer, and website
> owner who hides their information that they all run for cover.
> This idea is by no means perfect--I admit. There are many aspects which
> could be changed or improved on--but its just an idea of mine.
>
>
>

AG