An end to Spam?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Bluebottle, Feb 6, 2004.

  1. Bluebottle

    Bluebottle Guest

    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)
    Bluebottle, Feb 6, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bluebottle

    L33T Guest

    L33T, Feb 6, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bluebottle

    Jason M Guest

    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?
    Jason M, Feb 6, 2004
    #3
  4. 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.
    T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz, Feb 6, 2004
    #4
  5. 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.
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Feb 6, 2004
    #5
  6. Bluebottle

    Brendan Guest

    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.
    Brendan, Feb 7, 2004
    #6
  7. Bluebottle

    Bluebottle Guest

    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)
    Bluebottle, Feb 7, 2004
    #7
  8. Bluebottle

    Bluebottle Guest

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

    > wired had a similar concept
    >
    > http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,62177,00.html?tw=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, Feb 7, 2004
    #8
  9. Bluebottle

    steve Guest

    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......
    steve, Feb 7, 2004
    #9
  10. 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?
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Feb 7, 2004
    #10
  11. Bluebottle

    Bluebottle Guest

    In article <jo1Vb.21480$>,
    steve <> wrote:

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



    How can it be fraud if the address is non-existant?

    --
    Bluebottle
    (Knee Polishing Badge, 2nd Class, East Finchley Boy Scouts)
    Bluebottle, Feb 7, 2004
    #11
  12. On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 09:06:52 +1300, Bluebottle wrote:

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

    >
    > How can it be fraud if the address is non-existant?


    Using bogus credit card numbers...
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Feb 8, 2004
    #12
  13. Bluebottle

    pour-lay Guest

    Sometimes I bounce the spam to the credit card billing processor, they
    use, like ccbilling.com.

    Just a few minutes ago ( time to waste ) I thought of bouncing a spam
    message to the domain registering site (in this case joker.com) only
    to find they have a reporting form for such violation. I wonder if
    many other domain registering companies offer this service.
    pour-lay, Feb 8, 2004
    #13
  14. Bluebottle

    Bluebottle Guest

    In article <>,
    Uncle StoatWarbler <> wrote:

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

    > >
    > > How can it be fraud if the address is non-existant?

    >
    > Using bogus credit card numbers...



    If the product was being sent to a valid address where I was scooping it
    off without paying for it, THAT would be fraud. But if the address is
    non-existant and the product cannot be delivered to me (or anyone) how
    can I be guilty of fraud?

    Concise Oxford: fraud, n, 1.criminal deception; the use of false
    representations to gain an unjust advantage.


    --
    Bluebottle
    (Knee Polishing Badge, 2nd Class, East Finchley Boy Scouts)
    Bluebottle, Feb 8, 2004
    #14
  15. Bluebottle

    whoisthis Guest

    In article <>,
    Bluebottle <> wrote:

    >
    > Waddaya reckon guys?


    DUMB idea, it may be a good way to put the competition out of business,
    spam millions of people with someone elses goods and have them
    victimised.
    whoisthis, Feb 9, 2004
    #15
  16. Bluebottle

    Bluebottle Guest

    In article <>,
    whoisthis <> wrote:

    > >
    > > Waddaya reckon guys?

    >
    > DUMB idea, it may be a good way to put the competition out of business,
    > spam millions of people with someone elses goods and have them
    > victimised.



    How the f**k do you work that out?

    (1) The object is to put these turkeys out of business.

    (2) Watch my lips: "False name. False card number. False address."
    Nothing gets sent out unless the spammer's client is seriously wacked in
    the head. But a lot of time and hopefully money is wasted checking.

    --
    Bluebottle
    (Knee Polishing Badge, 2nd Class, East Finchley Boy Scouts)
    Bluebottle, Feb 9, 2004
    #16
  17. Bluebottle wrote:
    >>DUMB idea, it may be a good way to put the competition out of business,
    >>spam millions of people with someone elses goods and have them
    >>victimised.


    > How the f**k do you work that out?
    > (1) The object is to put these turkeys out of business.
    > (2) Watch my lips: "False name. False card number. False address."
    > Nothing gets sent out unless the spammer's client is seriously wacked in
    > the head. But a lot of time and hopefully money is wasted checking.


    Company A sends out a whole heap of spam under company b's name..
    everyone spams company b, slowing orders etc... rinse and repeat, and
    it'll take it's toll.

    --
    Http://www.Dave.net.nz
    Play Hangman
    Register, and play Space Invaders or Pacman.
    T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz, Feb 9, 2004
    #17
  18. Bluebottle

    Bluebottle Guest

    In article <8eQVb.39333$>,
    "T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz" <> wrote:

    > Company A sends out a whole heap of spam under company b's name..
    > everyone spams company b, slowing orders etc... rinse and repeat, and
    > it'll take it's toll.



    But only because Company B paid Company A to send out the spams. If they
    didn't we wouldn't get spammed. Therefore Company B are in the firing
    line and deserve everything they get.

    In fact IMHO, they are the spammer irrespective of the precise method of
    generating the outgoing emails.

    --
    Bluebottle
    (Knee Polishing Badge, 2nd Class, East Finchley Boy Scouts)
    Bluebottle, Feb 10, 2004
    #18
  19. In article <>, Bluebottle <> wrote:
    >In article <8eQVb.39333$>,
    > "T.N.O. - Dave.net.nz" <> wrote:
    >
    >> Company A sends out a whole heap of spam under company b's name..
    >> everyone spams company b, slowing orders etc... rinse and repeat, and
    >> it'll take it's toll.

    >
    >But only because Company B paid Company A to send out the spams. If they
    >didn't we wouldn't get spammed. Therefore Company B are in the firing
    >line and deserve everything they get.
    >
    >In fact IMHO, they are the spammer irrespective of the precise method of
    >generating the outgoing emails.


    Yes my capitain ! I would make spam returning in the direction of both
    companknees. ! They are both rotten swines for spammin me.

    <exits stage left looking for jelly babies>

    Bruce



    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
    think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
    If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
    I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
    of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
    the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.
    Bruce Sinclair, Feb 11, 2004
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ike lozada
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    526
    ike lozada
    May 27, 2004
  2. Dave

    Measure delay end-to-end

    Dave, Jul 19, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    574
  3. ec
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,733
    shinobi
    Jul 25, 2006
  4. C A Preston

    Spam-Spam and more Spam

    C A Preston, Apr 12, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    565
    Hywel
    Apr 12, 2004
  5. Clwddncr
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    668
    Dave - Dave.net.nz
    Feb 7, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page