RE: spammers will move offshore?
Im confuesed about the origin of this discussion, since i mised the kick off, but i see way too much concern over spam, we've all been receiving junk mail in our Mailboxes (paper plastic stuff) for years, and has any1 ever been sued or banned from the US postal service for it? Im gona add real quick that im not american, and quicky disagree with the fact that americans arent liked, its jsut that the fact that you try to control the rest of the world, INCLUDING, the internet, makes people think twice. the internet belongs to no one, and child pornography might be legal in some weird country in the world, but thats not the issue here. SPAM, typically unsolicited mail, is no differnet from having jehova witnesses knock at your door, or one of them salesman try to sell u insurance a house a boat, the moon, hell his underwear even. Do u actually SUE that guy for it? i agree that spam is anoying, even mailign lsitst like this one get picked up email addresses, and that there should be something done to fix it, but how can u prosecute people on the internet when u allow the same practice to go unbothered in real life. Morgan Dollard NSC Technology -----Original Message----- From: Derek J. Balling [mailto:dredd@megacity.org] Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 15:36 To: Barry Shein; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: spammers will move offshore? At 12:21 AM -0400 8/10/00, Barry Shein wrote:
Where did this dopey "spammers will just move offshore" idea come from?
Me.
The legal term is "agency", hire someone to do something illegal to promote your US business and you're in trouble.
But what if you don't KNOW that they're doing something illegal? e.g., you hire Joe's Marketing Company, and without your knowledge Joe's Mktg Co spams people. I'm no lawyer, but it seems silly that you'd be liable for stuff you weren't even aware of (or perhaps that you had told them not to do but they did anyway, who knows).
Besides there are a million cooperating treaties between major nations and, etc...
For major criminal activities like kiddie porn and drug smuggling? Sure. For spam complaints? You'd probably get laughed at all the way from one side of the globe to the other (Sadly).
Do people really believe you can open a mail order crack house in the UK and sell to US customers...???
No.
Besides, that's making the best the enemy of the good, it's not like spamming is some multibillion dollar biz that's going to open glass and steel skyscraper complexes in Afgahnistan.
It's the same pimply sociopaths who smurf, junk fax (do you find yourself getting lots of offshore junk faxes???), etc.
Make it illegal in the US, assume they'll make it illegal in other countries which don't want to see their internet access disrupted because they're rogue countries and blocked or severely whitelisted.
Maybe you haven't been keeping track, but us Merkins aren't really well-liked or respected outside the borders of the land we live in. Other countries won't "cave in" that easily, methinks.
It's a heckuva lot more promising than whining that spammers might launch their own space stations to spam from.
Who said anything about space programs? ;-)
Cripes, as it stands you can't even stop that schmuck in Georgia who has been mass spamming copier toner supplies for years. You can't touch him (obviously, he keeps doing it and putting his name and 800 number in the spam.)
He ain't going to Libya to operate his toner business any time soon...trust me on this. But why bother he's perfectly safe in Georgia.
My point exactly... when his lucrative source of income is gone, you don't think he'll move the operation somewhere that he can continue to make money? (I must assume its lucrative or he wouldn't still be wasting time on it)
It's just like the junk fax stuff, just make it illegal and no one will hire the spammers except for a few miscreants who can be dealt with.
Just like that's working for crack sales? ;-)
And spammers won't be able to incorporate (limit liability), open bank accounts, solicit investment money, get loans, business licenses, etc. You can't do those kinds of thing for illegal activities.
It's not like you put down "spamhaus" on your articles of incorporation. ;-) D Disclaimer ---------- This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. This communication represents the originator's personal views and opinions, which do not necessarily reflect those of the NSC Group. If you are not the original recipient or the person responsible for delivering the email to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error, and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, please immediately notify administrator@nscglobal.com.
Morgan Dollard wrote:
Im confuesed about the origin of this discussion, since i mised the kick off, but i see way too much concern over spam, we've all been receiving junk mail in our Mailboxes (paper plastic stuff) for years, and has any1 ever been sued or banned from the US postal service for it?
There's a difference. When someone physically mails you an ad, you suffer no damages. The sender pays for the ad. It costs you nothing to receive it. Similarly when someone tries to phone an ad to you. The sender pays for the call. (I have yet to see an advertiser try to make collect calls. But even then, you have the option to refuse the call before it costs you anything.) Now, if someone sends you an ad via a fax, that's different. You have to pay for the received fax. Your paper and toner are being consumed, and you don't have the option to refuse (other than blocking specific incoming phone numbers). For this reason, it is illegal to send unsolicited ads to fax machines. E-mail is similar to fax machines. The sender pays little or nothing. The recipient pays for the ad in the form of network bandwidth consumed, disk storage used, and CPU cycles used. Like faxes, you can't choose to refuse the ad without blocking all mail from that source. While these costs incurred by a spam recipient may not be much for an individual on a fast network line, they can be very substantial for an ISP with thousands of customers. (How much storage on a mail server is consumed if 10,000 customers each receive a 2K spam? How about if each one receives 5 a day?) In order to avoid server meltdown, most ISPs have had to upgrade their mail servers and hire full-time abuse staff. This costs real money, which gets passed along to their customers in the form of higher subscription rates.
SPAM, typically unsolicited mail, is no differnet from having jehova witnesses knock at your door, or one of them salesman try to sell u insurance a house a boat, the moon, hell his underwear even.
If I was forced to pay for these people's advertising, I would be just as angry with them. If you can figure out a way to make the senders (and not the recipients) bear the entire cost of spam, we'd all love to hear it. Until then, they are stealing my money to fund their advertising campaigns. -- David
David Charlap wrote:
Morgan Dollard wrote:
Im confuesed about the origin of this discussion, since i mised the kick off, but i see way too much concern over spam, we've all been receiving junk mail in our Mailboxes (paper plastic stuff) for years, and has any1 ever been sued or banned from the US postal service for it?
There's a difference. When someone physically mails you an ad, you suffer no damages. The sender pays for the ad. It costs you nothing to receive it.
Often repeated, but untrue. Someone has to spend TIME to sort through the junk. That time has value. Someone has to pay for carting the trash off to the landfill or recycling center. There is normally a cost associated with this as well. What is true is with postal junk mail, the sender pays SOME of the cost, whereas with email junk, the sender pays nothing or so close to nothing as to be unmeasurable on a per-piece basis. Paper junk mail represents a very real cost to companies. Think about the 3 or 4 pieces you get each day at the office, multiplied by hundreds or thousands of people in a facility. I find it impossible to get off some folks' junk (paper) mail lists. Calling, writing, emailing, telling them I'll never buy their products or services is no deterrent. Example: Learning Tree (provide computer-related training) has been sending me junk mail for 16 years. I've asked for it to stop, but it's cheaper for them to just send stuff than it is to prune their list when requested. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Senie dts@senie.com Amaranth Networks Inc. http://www.amaranth.com
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 11:35:08AM -0400, Daniel Senie wrote:
or services is no deterrent. Example: Learning Tree (provide computer-related training) has been sending me junk mail for 16 years. I've asked for it to stop, but it's cheaper for them to just send stuff than it is to prune their list when requested.
If they send you a postage-paid reply card, tape it to a brick and mail it back.
On 08/10/00, Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com> wrote:
I find it impossible to get off some folks' junk (paper) mail lists. Calling, writing, emailing, telling them I'll never buy their products or services is no deterrent. Example: Learning Tree (provide computer-related training) has been sending me junk mail for 16 years. I've asked for it to stop, but it's cheaper for them to just send stuff than it is to prune their list when requested.
There are already laws which cover paper mail and telephone solicitation. The best resource for info on that appears to be http://www.junkbusters.com/ . And, to answer a question earlier in this thread: yes, there have been heavy fines levied against advertisers who do not follow those laws. Same with junk faxes. http://www.cauce.org/ and http://www.suespammers.org/ can tell you of the work being done on US legislation for spam. But, let's not open the debate on whether that's a good idea or not here again, okay? Or if you do, please read the bills in question first. -- J.D. Falk "Laughter is the sound Product Manager that knowledge makes when it's born." Mail Abuse Prevention System LLC -- The Cluetrain Manifesto
Morgan Dollard Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 7:56 AM
Im confuesed about the origin of this discussion, since i mised the kick off,
I simply asked if Telstra was still being black-holed. I got my answer( they are) and it is done via a manual entry in the ORBS list. Now for the follow-up question, is anyone else, besides Telstra, serving OZ? AboveNet already confirmed that they aren't. If the answer to that is negative, then we ought to re-think the black-hole issue. Certainly, since my client is doing substantial traffic with OZ, I will recommend that they drop ORBS like a bad habit. It's impacting revenue. The latencies to OZ are bad enough, without having to deal with black-hole happy fanatics. SPAM is a side-issue here and not really relevent to losing connectivity with an entire continent.
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 11:48:06AM -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
Now for the follow-up question, is anyone else, besides Telstra, serving OZ?
Cable & Wireless Optus http://www.optus.net.au/
Yo All! On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Bradley Dunn wrote:
Now for the follow-up question, is anyone else, besides Telstra, serving OZ?
Cable & Wireless Optus http://www.optus.net.au/
Yup, and some of my favorite Telstra based spammers have already moved over to optus.... RGDS GARY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Ave, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701 gem@rellim.com Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676
"Gary E. Miller" wrote:
Yup, and some of my favorite Telstra based spammers have already moved over to optus....
I was under the impression that Optus is on ORBS' list also. -- North Shore Technologies, Cleveland, OH http://NorthShoreTechnologies.net Steve Sobol, BOFH - President, Chief Website Architect and Janitor Linux Instructor, PC/LAN Program, Natl. Institute of Technology, Akron, OH sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net - 888.480.4NET - 216.619.2NET
I don't think we need worry. a) Spammers are mentally defective {right?}. b) George W likes frying the mentally defective {al-la last night}. c) Ergo, iffen George gets elected, why, he'll fry all the spammers. Problem solved. End of story. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 10:29:52PM -0400, David Lesher wrote:
I don't think we need worry.
a) Spammers are mentally defective {right?}.
b) George W likes frying the mentally defective {al-la last night}.
c) Ergo, iffen George gets elected, why, he'll fry all the spammers.
Problem solved. End of story.
we don't fry in Texas, we barbecue. -- Sam Thomas Geek Mercenary
Yo All! On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Steve Sobol wrote:
"Gary E. Miller" wrote:
Yup, and some of my favorite Telstra based spammers have already moved over to optus....
I was under the impression that Optus is on ORBS' list also.
At first glance, I do not see Optus being blocked: # dnsip www.optus.net.au 202.139.82.3 # spamtest 202.139.82.3 rbl.maps.vix.com => rss.maps.vix.com => dul.maps.vix.com => relays.orbs.org => outputs.orbs.org => I do see telstra being blocked: # dnsip www.telstra.net au 203.50.1.77 # spamtest 203.50.1.77 rbl.maps.vix.com => rss.maps.vix.com => dul.maps.vix.com => relays.orbs.org => 127.0.0.4 relays.orbs.org => Telstra and Optus - spam haveners, refusing to act. outputs.orbs.org => RGDS GARY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Ave, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701 gem@rellim.com Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676
One of the current endearing spam techniques is to just take lists of apparently hundreds of thousands of mailboxes and add your domain to it and firehose your site with attempts, so you see hundreds of thousands of log messages daily like: john1...User unknown john2...User unknown john101...User unknown pumping from many sources all day. I don't think that sort of thing is available to the non-cyber world marketeers. It's made possible by the near zero cost to the spammers, plus the recipient-pays nature of spam. Even if you're not currently a victim of this directly consider the amount of bandwidth being hogged by this crap next time you're waiting for something. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo*
participants (12)
-
Barry Shein
-
Bradley Dunn
-
Daniel Senie
-
David Charlap
-
David Lesher
-
Gary E. Miller
-
J.D. Falk
-
Morgan Dollard
-
Roeland M.J. Meyer
-
Sam Thomas
-
Shawn McMahon
-
Steve Sobol