Right, I've had a guts full

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Ian O, Jul 16, 2003.

  1. Ian O

    Ian O Guest

    If I had responded to every offer of organ enhancement, you could use my
    dick to pipe CNG to every home in the South Island.

    I've had a guts full of spam.

    And struck back by the only way I know how.

    I placed an order with.... http://www.bestsupplementsonline.com/
    for a plausible quantity of their product, to be delivered to a
    ficticious address and paid for with a non-existant Visa card.

    With a bit of luck, they will incur a bank charge to verify the dud bank
    card, but even if they just waste a few minutes it will have made my day.

    Now, is there anyone out there with the programming skills to set up a
    program to which I can divert all incoming spam that will automate this
    process and bury the arseholes in a deluge of dud orders?

    That would be worth a Nobel Prize.


    ~ Ian O
    Ian O, Jul 16, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ian O

    m00se Guest

    Ian O wrote:
    > Now, is there anyone out there with the programming skills to set up a
    > program to which I can divert all incoming spam that will automate this
    > process and bury the arseholes in a deluge of dud orders?
    >
    > That would be worth a Nobel Prize.


    Or time in Jail.


    Remember, sending someone email can be classed as "Accessing their
    Computer System"


    http://www.internetnz.net.nz/issues/crimes-amend-bill-6/





    "251 Damaging or interfering with computer system

    "(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10
    years who intentionally or recklessly destroys, damages, or alters any
    computer system if he or she knows or ought to know that danger to life
    is likely to result.

    "(2) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7
    years who intentionally or recklessly, and without authority, -

    1. damages, deletes, adds to, modifies, or otherwise interferes with
    or impairs any data or software in any computer system; or

    2. causes any data or software in any computer system to be damaged,
    deleted, added to, modified, or otherwise interfered with or impaired; or

    3. causes any computer system to -
    1. fail; or
    2. deny service to any authorised users.





    Im sure you could read through the act and find a lot of other points
    that could result in you sharing a cell with Bubba.
    m00se, Jul 16, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ian O

    Guest

    m00se wrote:
    >
    > Ian O wrote:
    > > Now, is there anyone out there with the programming skills to set up a
    > > program to which I can divert all incoming spam that will automate this
    > > process and bury the arseholes in a deluge of dud orders?
    > >
    > > That would be worth a Nobel Prize.

    >
    > Or time in Jail.
    >
    > Remember, sending someone email can be classed as "Accessing their
    > Computer System"
    >
    > http://www.internetnz.net.nz/issues/crimes-amend-bill-6/
    >
    > "251 Damaging or interfering with computer system
    >
    > "(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10
    > years who intentionally or recklessly destroys, damages, or alters any
    > computer system if he or she knows or ought to know that danger to life
    > is likely to result.
    >
    > "(2) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7
    > years who intentionally or recklessly, and without authority, -
    >
    > 1. damages, deletes, adds to, modifies, or otherwise interferes with
    > or impairs any data or software in any computer system; or
    >
    > 2. causes any data or software in any computer system to be damaged,
    > deleted, added to, modified, or otherwise interfered with or impaired; or
    >
    > 3. causes any computer system to -
    > 1. fail; or
    > 2. deny service to any authorised users.
    >
    > Im sure you could read through the act and find a lot of other points
    > that could result in you sharing a cell with Bubba.


    I think you need to hone your legal analytical skills, Ian didn't
    propose any of the above..

    Going on your premise, any ISP that allows spam to be directed to
    a subscriber is potentially aiding & abetting in some of above offences.
    , Jul 16, 2003
    #3
  4. Ian O

    Ian O Guest

    In article <3f1499f6$>, m00se <>
    wrote:

    > Ian O wrote:
    > > Now, is there anyone out there with the programming skills to set up a
    > > program to which I can divert all incoming spam that will automate this
    > > process and bury the arseholes in a deluge of dud orders?
    > >
    > > That would be worth a Nobel Prize.

    >
    > Or time in Jail.
    >
    >
    > Remember, sending someone email can be classed as "Accessing their
    > Computer System"



    Except that responding to an URL is not sending an email.

    And the act of filling out a purchase order with false information is
    not fraud as the name, address and card # are all non-existant.

    The problem I have struck is spam that invites you to call a US phone
    number. Since I'm not about to waste a toll call on these burks, I'll
    have to wait for VoIP.

    ~ Ian O
    Ian O, Jul 16, 2003
    #4
  5. In article <3f14b34c$>, m00se <> wrote:
    > wrote:
    >>
    >> I think you need to hone your legal analytical skills, Ian didn't
    >> propose any of the above..
    >>
    >> Going on your premise, any ISP that allows spam to be directed to
    >> a subscriber is potentially aiding & abetting in some of above offences.

    >Ian stated "process and bury the arseholes in a deluge of dud orders"
    >
    >Filling in the form hundreds of times with false infortmation could...
    >
    >" 3. causes any computer system to -
    > 1. fail; or
    > 2. deny service to any authorised users."


    Wouldn't that be wonderful :)

    >Leaving himself open for possible prosecution.


    ... and making the stupidity of the law obvious for all to see :)

    Maybe we could get a law change ...while he does time (sorry Ian :) ).

    Bruce

    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Oook !
    NOTE remove the not_ from the address to reply. NO SPAM !
    Bruce Sinclair, Jul 16, 2003
    #5
  6. Ian O

    m00se Guest

    wrote:
    >
    > I think you need to hone your legal analytical skills, Ian didn't
    > propose any of the above..
    >
    > Going on your premise, any ISP that allows spam to be directed to
    > a subscriber is potentially aiding & abetting in some of above offences.



    Ian stated "process and bury the arseholes in a deluge of dud orders"

    Filling in the form hundreds of times with false infortmation could...

    " 3. causes any computer system to -
    1. fail; or
    2. deny service to any authorised users."

    Leaving himself open for possible prosecution.
    m00se, Jul 16, 2003
    #6
  7. On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:00:27 +1200, Ian O
    <> wrote:

    >If I had responded to every offer of organ enhancement, you could use my
    >dick to pipe CNG to every home in the South Island.
    >

    Join IHUG, their ISpy is great - its only $2.50 a month
    >I've had a guts full of spam.
    John Hornblow, Jul 16, 2003
    #7
  8. In article <>, (John Hornblow) wrote:
    >On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:00:27 +1200, Ian O
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>If I had responded to every offer of organ enhancement, you could use my
    >>dick to pipe CNG to every home in the South Island.
    >>

    >Join IHUG, their ISpy is great - its only $2.50 a month
    >>I've had a guts full of spam.

    >


    Why should anyone pay for a service that should be provided ... it's in the
    ISP's interests after all.

    Bruce


    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Oook !
    NOTE remove the not_ from the address to reply. NO SPAM !
    Bruce Sinclair, Jul 16, 2003
    #8
  9. In article <bf2f8o$h8r$>, MarkH <> wrote:
    >Ian O <> wrote in news:I.Orchard-
    >:
    >
    >> If I had responded to every offer of organ enhancement, you could use my
    >> dick to pipe CNG to every home in the South Island.
    >>
    >> I've had a guts full of spam.

    >
    >What we need is a worldwide push for spamming to be an imprisonable
    >offence.


    Prison ? ... is that all ?

    >Someone sends millions of unsolicited E-Mails (literally) in one week, put
    >‘em away for a couple of years. Hopefully that would slow down spammers a
    >bit.
    >
    >It should also be an imprisonable offence to hire spammers to increase your
    >business.


    Yes ! ... the sites advertised must also be responsible ... unless it can be
    PROVEN that they knew nothing (otherwise there's likely to be an outbreak of
    spam advertising telecom :) ) .

    >As long as the law doesn’t take this problem seriously, it will persist.


    Yes. Bring on the do not call list here. Let's extend it to do not email ...
    and any site spamming from overseas shoudl be blocked. end of story.

    Bruce

    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Oook !
    NOTE remove the not_ from the address to reply. NO SPAM !
    Bruce Sinclair, Jul 16, 2003
    #9
  10. Ian O

    Craig Sutton Guest

    "m00se" <> wrote in message
    news:3f14b6ef$...
    > m00se wrote:
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > >>I think you need to hone your legal analytical skills, Ian didn't
    > >>propose any of the above..
    > >>
    > >>Going on your premise, any ISP that allows spam to be directed to
    > >>a subscriber is potentially aiding & abetting in some of above offences.

    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Ian stated "process and bury the arseholes in a deluge of dud orders"
    > >
    > > Filling in the form hundreds of times with false infortmation could...
    > >
    > > " 3. causes any computer system to -
    > > 1. fail; or
    > > 2. deny service to any authorised users."
    > >
    > > Leaving himself open for possible prosecution.
    > >

    >
    > ... and someone has to be a test case, I would hate to see him being it.
    > So I was attempting to politely point out, now with ammendment 6 in
    > place, to tread very carefully when thinking of things like the above.
    >
    >
    > Forgive me for pointing out something he may have been unaware of.


    He could put the post through an anonymous remailer
    Craig Sutton, Jul 16, 2003
    #10
  11. Ian O

    Who is this Guest

    In article <bf2f8o$h8r$>, MarkH <>
    wrote:

    >
    > Someone sends millions of unsolicited E-Mails (literally) in one week, put
    > ‘em away for a couple of years. Hopefully that would slow down spammers a
    > bit.


    week...yea right, the big boys are doing 100 MILLION an hour !!!!!

    I am on the verge of no longer using email as it has rapidly become less
    a technology the enables me to do more and more of a technology that
    inhibits.

    An ISP who offers ONLY web browsing (port 80 only) could do well as they
    could offer a service cheaper than someone who has to offer email and
    has their bandwidth buggered up with spam. Some of the spam these days
    is breaking to 200K size.
    Who is this, Jul 16, 2003
    #11
  12. Ian O

    Who is this Guest

    In article <>,
    Ian O <> wrote:

    > If I had responded to every offer of organ enhancement, you could use my
    > dick to pipe CNG to every home in the South Island.
    >
    > I've had a guts full of spam.
    >
    > And struck back by the only way I know how.
    >
    > I placed an order with.... http://www.bestsupplementsonline.com/
    > for a plausible quantity of their product, to be delivered to a
    > ficticious address and paid for with a non-existant Visa card.



    look to see if they have an email address and then use it every where
    you can so that they get spammed. If nothing else put in ones like





    If nothing else the spambots will pick up on it and try emailing them
    thousands of times and even if they do not exist then it is adding
    useless addresses to the spambots making them less effective.
    Who is this, Jul 16, 2003
    #12
  13. Ian O

    madknoxie Guest

    In article <bf2f8o$h8r$>, MarkH <>
    wrote:

    > Ian O <> wrote in news:I.Orchard-
    > :
    >
    > > If I had responded to every offer of organ enhancement, you could use my
    > > dick to pipe CNG to every home in the South Island.
    > >
    > > I've had a guts full of spam.

    >
    > What we need is a worldwide push for spamming to be an imprisonable
    > offence.


    Yeah, that would *really* work. Just as it does with drugs, speeding,
    rapes, murders, or just as it did with prostitution. Come on guys, get
    real.


    > As long as the law doesn’t take this problem seriously, it will persist.


    This problem will still be around regardless of whether the law takes it
    seriously or not.

    One solution I've heard that I think has merit, although I'm not sure if
    it would be feasible to implement, is to charge everyone 1c (not $1 like
    Sherlock said) to send an email. I would consider myself a heavy email
    user and under this scheme I would probably have to pay 10-30c a day.

    Now if you're send, or wanting to send 100 million emails in one day, it
    quickly becomes unfeasible and ghastly expensive to do. But again I
    re-iterate, I'm not sure it would be feasible to implement.

    --
    madknoxie
    madknoxie, Jul 16, 2003
    #13
  14. Ian O

    Who is this Guest

    In article <>,
    madknoxie <> wrote:

    > Now if you're send, or wanting to send 100 million emails in one day, it
    > quickly becomes unfeasible and ghastly expensive to do. But again I
    > re-iterate, I'm not sure it would be feasible to implement.


    Reality is that is possibly close to what you are paying anyway for
    email, oh yes and you are also paying the to recieve emails too. THAT is
    where spam is a problem, unlike junk mail I get in my mail box, I am
    PAYING to receive this crap.

    The best solution is white lists, you set up a white lisy with your ISP
    and if the sender is not on it your ISP simply bounces the email, or
    perhaps it sends you an email that tells you that if you want email of
    subject XXX from sender YYY then click on the embeded URL.

    Either that or block ALL email in HTML format.

    There are variations on all of this of course, such as:
    Block all HTML email with URLs from people not in the white list
    Block all HTML email over 1K from people not in the white list
    (the above 2 would kill of 100% of the spam I get !!!!)
    Block all email with Java (please someone tell me any legitimate reason
    to have java in email!)

    It seems to me that ultimately a whitelist will require less processing
    time than a black list as the list of possible fake domains etc is
    effectively infinite. IPv6 will make this even more impossible to block
    as the range of IPs is MASSIVE!

    Of course the email applications should default to NOT displaying html
    and especailly the should not by default fetch URLs that spammers embed.
    Who is this, Jul 16, 2003
    #14
  15. "madknoxie" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > One solution I've heard that I think has merit, although I'm not sure if
    > it would be feasible to implement, is to charge everyone 1c (not $1 like
    > Sherlock said) to send an email. I would consider myself a heavy email
    > user and under this scheme I would probably have to pay 10-30c a day.
    >
    > Now if you're send, or wanting to send 100 million emails in one day, it
    > quickly becomes unfeasible and ghastly expensive to do. But again I
    > re-iterate, I'm not sure it would be feasible to implement.
    >


    I thought maybe if you are caught spamming, you are charged $1 for every
    email you have sent. Not everyone is charged.

    Cheers,
    Nicholas Sherlock
    Nicholas Sherlock, Jul 16, 2003
    #15
  16. Ian O

    Steve Guest

    Ian O allegedly said:

    > If I had responded to every offer of organ enhancement, you could use my
    > dick to pipe CNG to every home in the South Island.
    >
    > I've had a guts full of spam.
    >
    > And struck back by the only way I know how.
    >
    > I placed an order with.... http://www.bestsupplementsonline.com/
    > for a plausible quantity of their product, to be delivered to a
    > ficticious address and paid for with a non-existant Visa card.
    >
    > With a bit of luck, they will incur a bank charge to verify the dud bank
    > card, but even if they just waste a few minutes it will have made my day.
    >
    > Now, is there anyone out there with the programming skills to set up a
    > program to which I can divert all incoming spam that will automate this
    > process and bury the arseholes in a deluge of dud orders?
    >
    > That would be worth a Nobel Prize.
    >
    >
    > ~ Ian O


    They may track you down from your mail headers and call the police and ask
    you be prosecuted for fraud.

    Be careful out there. You already know they are unscrupulous.

    --
    Steve
    Steve, Jul 16, 2003
    #16
  17. Ian O

    Wyn Guest

    MarkH wrote:
    > Ian O <> wrote in
    > news:I.Orchard- :
    >
    >> If I had responded to every offer of organ enhancement, you could
    >> use my dick to pipe CNG to every home in the South Island.
    >>
    >> I've had a guts full of spam.

    >
    > What we need is a worldwide push for spamming to be an imprisonable
    > offence.


    The State of Virginia, USA has just enacted a law for spammers - five years
    in jail.

    Can't see it catching on in Nigeria, tho'. :)

    Wyn
    Wyn, Jul 16, 2003
    #17
  18. Ian O

    Peter KERR Guest

    In article <>, wrote:
    > m00se wrote:
    > >
    > > Remember, sending someone email can be classed as "Accessing their
    > > Computer System"
    > >
    > > http://www.internetnz.net.nz/issues/crimes-amend-bill-6/
    > >
    > > "251 Damaging or interfering with computer system
    > >
    > > "(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10
    > > years who intentionally or recklessly destroys, damages, or alters any
    > > computer system if he or she knows or ought to know that danger to life
    > > is likely to result.
    > >
    > > "(2) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7
    > > years who intentionally or recklessly, and without authority, -
    > >
    > > 1. damages, deletes, adds to, modifies, or otherwise interferes with
    > > or impairs any data or software in any computer system; or
    > >
    > > 2. causes any data or software in any computer system to be damaged,
    > > deleted, added to, modified, or otherwise interfered with or impaired; or
    > >
    > > 3. causes any computer system to -
    > > 1. fail; or
    > > 2. deny service to any authorised users.
    > >
    > > Im sure you could read through the act and find a lot of other points
    > > that could result in you sharing a cell with Bubba.

    >
    > I think you need to hone your legal analytical skills, Ian didn't
    > propose any of the above..
    >


    Or, in more robust usenet style, bollocks ;-)

    Ian could eventually be got for some form of fraud,
    that is if the witless spammer got hit hard enough in the wallet
    by bogus orders, and had the clue$ to trace it back to Ian,
    and then had the gumption, realising that his adversary was
    not in the continental USA, to actually chase him...

    But dammit, ISPs should be doing something along the lines of
    what Ian suggested. I saw a report this week suggesting that
    80% of all daily email inbound to AOL is spam. Some might think
    the outbound was about that too :-( An other report suggested that with
    the current rate of increase in spam, email will cease to be a
    useful business tool within 12 months...

    Thought for tyhe day:
    consider the ratio of paper spam to real snail mail in your
    old fashion ed letter box
    Peter KERR, Jul 16, 2003
    #18
  19. Ian O

    Who is this Guest

    In article <>,
    Peter KERR <> wrote:
    >
    > But dammit, ISPs should be doing something along the lines of
    > what Ian suggested. I saw a report this week suggesting that
    > 80% of all daily email inbound to AOL is spam. Some might think
    > the outbound was about that too :-( An other report suggested that with
    > the current rate of increase in spam, email will cease to be a
    > useful business tool within 12 months...


    AOL is blocking more than 2.5 BILLION spams a DAY !!!!
    That comes to about 30,000 spam per second each and every day.
    As the average spam is increasing in size, if we take an average of say
    25K in size (I regularly get spams 100K plus!), that comes to 62500
    Gigabytes (62.5 Terabytes) that has been shipped over their lines each
    day, or put it another way they would need a 750Mbyte/sec line running
    flat out 24/7 just to account for the spam.
    Now just think of the servers they need to receieve, filter, sort that
    kind of data, never mind about the intranet they would need as well.
    Now lets add into this the fact that most spams have "img src=http://"
    tags the average spam is probably 10-20 times as large due to all the
    graphics downloading when the user views it, so the spam that IS getting
    through is generating just as much traffic as the stauff that is blocked.

    the truth is, you are probably paying $5-10 a month for spam, and
    personally I would prefer those $$ to go towards a faster connection.
    Who is this, Jul 16, 2003
    #19
  20. Ian O

    Craig Shore Guest

    On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:37:48 +1200, Ian O
    <> wrote:

    >In article <3f1499f6$>, m00se <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >> Ian O wrote:
    >> > Now, is there anyone out there with the programming skills to set up a
    >> > program to which I can divert all incoming spam that will automate this
    >> > process and bury the arseholes in a deluge of dud orders?
    >> >
    >> > That would be worth a Nobel Prize.

    >>
    >> Or time in Jail.
    >>
    >>
    >> Remember, sending someone email can be classed as "Accessing their
    >> Computer System"

    >
    >
    >Except that responding to an URL is not sending an email.
    >
    >And the act of filling out a purchase order with false information is
    >not fraud as the name, address and card # are all non-existant.
    >
    >The problem I have struck is spam that invites you to call a US phone
    >number. Since I'm not about to waste a toll call on these burks, I'll
    >have to wait for VoIP.


    The good thing about that is if you can track down their home number,
    it's the middle of the night there when it's a decent hour of the day
    here. I did actually call one once. Got his flatmate in the middle
    of the night, and he wasn't home :)
    That was back in the days when there was that little of it that it was
    worth doing something about.
    Craig Shore, Jul 16, 2003
    #20
    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. LEICA

    CF CARD GUTS

    LEICA, Dec 20, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    429
    Kevin McMurtrie
    Dec 21, 2004
  2. lifestylelink
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    678
    Ponder
    Aug 12, 2006
  3. Nicholas Sherlock

    DVD player guts

    Nicholas Sherlock, Aug 31, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    594
    Nicholas Sherlock
    Sep 1, 2003
  4. Chris Sherlock

    What's the guts with xtra's email?

    Chris Sherlock, May 3, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    2,022
    Robin Halligan
    May 4, 2008
  5. Meat Plow

    New 'guts' on the way

    Meat Plow, Jun 30, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    620
    Meat Plow
    Jul 27, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page