Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 60006	2005-07-19 21:57:00	Hit back at spammers	Greg (193)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
373539	2005-07-22 00:44:00	God, you're an idiot.Why thankyou Ninja If 100,000 people start attacking www.penispills.com it will initially affect that site, then the other 500 sites co-hosted on the same server, if the attack was big enough it would the start to affect core switches and routers and affect the other servers at the datacentre. If it was big enough then yes. Perhaps this would inspire you as server owner, or whatever you are, to make damn sure www.penispills.com does NOT live on space you control? Also, to effect the thousands you may have, spam from www.penispills.com would need to be in the millions. www.penispills.com would cease to be a valued client.. get it?	personthingy (1670)
373540	2005-07-22 01:02:00	Perhaps this would inspire you as server owner, or whatever you are, to make damn sure www . penispills . com does NOT live on space you control? Also, to effect the thousands you may have, spam from www . penispills . com would need to be in the millions . www . penispills . com would cease to be a valued client . . get it?If the point was here you would be nowhere near it . It is often not practical for a content provider to know the content of every website they host . If I put up hosting for www . sellstuffonline . com or www . someinnocuousdomain . com I don't have the time or resources to go back every couple of days to see what they've uploaded . Even if I had the time to do this, there's nothing to stop one of my customers from having a stupid password and their account potentially being compromised . That's why the good Lord Jesus invented abuse@$provider . com so that people can report network abuse or problem sites to the administrators and they can decide what appropriate action to take (if any) . If I happen to sell hosting to some guy that decides to spamvertise his site, it's not my fault unless I'm doing it knowingly, which in 90% of cases is true . Why should you and a group of other small-brained vigilantes hose my server potentially affecting my business, and the businesses of other innocent customers for the actions of one . On the off chance my server hosted a spammers site and it was attacked you could take down banks, government departments, airlines, and countless other critical sites based on this stupid approach . The appropriate method of dealing with this is going to abuse@host and reporting it . If there is no response go to abuse@upstreamprovider . Most abuse departments are pretty responsive . This doesn't even take into account the fact that just because you consider a message to be spam doesn't mean it is . I get complaints from idiots on a weekly basis that they are being "spammed" by companies that they have legitimately gone and signed up for a newsletter from .	ninja (1671)
373541	2005-07-22 01:03:00	Dear ninja: your: I've got a dozen or so webservers in my machine room . They all host ~500 sites each . If one of my customers on webserverA puts up a site to sell penis pills I'm not going to know . If he then spams a million idiots, saying go to www . penispills . com to get enlarged, and idiotA (you for instance) will have that stupid program go "OMG ATTACK www . penispills . com" If 100,000 people start attacking www . penispills . com it will initially affect that site, then the other 500 sites co-hosted on the same server, if the attack was big enough it would the start to affect core switches and routers and affect the other servers at the datacentre . Suddenly you've taken down 6000 innocent websites, or potentially an entire ISP from a stupid DDoS attack (because that is EXACTLY what it is) all because one customer decided he might be able to make a quick buck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . is right on the mark . The Al Capone scenerio is exactly the same thing . . but you are the benefactor here . As I see it, if you are not in bed with the spammers, then you are not responsible for their actions (US Federal Court vs . The Second Amendment of the US Constitution, cr . 1998 app~ppg 1138-2044 ibid:"Here comes; . "), in which the gun companies were found to not be responsible either, unless there was some collusion and/or profiteering in the sale, distribution or conveyance of the firearms in question . And as I feel was wrongly attributed to me as sponsoring and abetting the anti-spam activities that are being discussed here, let me reiterate: It is not my position to support mass mail-backs to the spammer and the ISP . The ISP (hopefully) is not in the act of or trying to support the spammer . If the spammer and the ISP are in cahoots, then it becomes a moot point . Actually, for a better arguement, there has to be someone's tail to twist here . If the ISP is not culpable, then hammer the spammer . But I don't see it happening that way . The only (read: deep pocket) that can be caused some monetary discomfort is the ISP . . . . . . . even if we all know that's not the right person to go after . As stated, the ISP is kinda locked into an operational site; the spammer may just pick up his Celeron and move to a different ISP, and maybe do that with only a phone call too . Maybe new potential commercial users of ISP's will have to post a performance bond, non negotiable and non-refundable if infractions are noted .	SurferJoe46 (51)
373542	2005-07-22 01:10:00	Perhaps this would inspire you as server owner, or whatever you are, to make damn sure www . penispills . com does NOT live on space you control? Also, to effect the thousands you may have, spam from www . penispills . com would need to be in the millions . www . penispills . com would cease to be a valued client . . get it? So you take on the responsibility of deciding Ninja's business dealings as result . You decide who he shall do business with and who he shall not and you deicide to punish him, without any legal or moral right, if you disagree with his business dealings -- all in the name of a holy war on spammers . Sounds like blackmail to me and I think it is morally repugnant . I see no difference betwee this and a criminal who attempts to extract payment from a business by threatening a DOS attack .	Biggles (121)
373543	2005-07-22 01:30:00	I see no difference betwee this and a criminal who attempts to extract payment from a business by threatening a DOS attack.The difference is that the spammers unsolicated activitys are designed to attract people to a website. This software excepts the invitation automaticly and in mass. The servers owners are caught in the crossfire, but this is what they get for hosting sites that make these invitations. They will soon want to lose them. Yes this will mean putting a clause or 2 in the TOS "the client agrees not to send bulk unsolicated email attracting people to this site" Of course i'd rather see the spammers activitys made illegal, and then anyone hosting them is aiding a crime and would have to atleast be seen to be unattractive to this type of client. Telecom for years had a thing saying that your phone may not be used for illegal activity. In much the same way that sort of thing could be applied to those who misuse webspace/bandwidth for spamming purposes.	personthingy (1670)
373544	2005-07-22 01:54:00	So how do you handle spammers that send their payload via spambot networks? How many ISP's could be involved? Would the initiator of the spam even be affected (w4r3zmessageboard.org.ru)? Cripes, I'm being spammed, apparently, from my own domain because my business email addy has been harvested from any, or all, of a number sources. Can your software distinguish that the actual addy is from hotmail, yahoo (the message source doesn't that's for sure)?	Murray P (44)
373545	2005-07-22 02:02:00	Cripes, I'm being spammed, apparently, from my own domain because my business email addy has been harvested from any, or all, of a number sources . Can your software distinguish that the actual addy is from hotmail, yahoo (the message source doesn't that's for sure)?Yes i've been spammed by "my own domain" too . From what i read this software goes to the site for you . Lets say you get this email: " to: murrayp@murrayps . domain . yeah . right . com from: murrayp@murrayps . domain . yeah . right . com Buy your crap from www . penispills . com" The software then visits www . penispills . com It takes no interest in the apparent sender or recipiant .	personthingy (1670)
373546	2005-07-22 02:04:00	So how do you handle spammers that send their payload via spambot networks? How many ISP's could be involved? Simple, we just unplug the internet and all head off for a picnic. :badpc: :( :D	Metla (12)
373547	2005-07-22 02:06:00	The difference is that the spammers unsolicated activitys are designed to attract people to a website. This software excepts the invitation automaticly and in mass.Okie doke. Lets say for instance that you've pissed me off for some reason, lets say illogical posts about spam on a forum. I write an extremely short script to pick up a couple of hundred domains and start randomly firing mail out to them spamvertising www.millerton.co.nz, or I use one of the hundreds of bulkmail programs easily available online to do the same. Blam. Your website takes a slug to the head. Or say I make a post to a mailing list and in my signature it has www.theplaceIwork.net.nz in it. Someone on the mailing list accidentally labels my message as spam or reports it by accident. The piece of software you're using then gets word of it, and everyone running this DDoS tool starts well, DDoSing my innocent website. Our mail servers end up in spam black lists quite regularly because of dickheads using MailWasher and submitting valid Mailer-Daemon bounces to spamcop/other bullcrap spam block list sites. It's not spam, it's listed because it relies on user feedback, and users are idiots.	ninja (1671)
373548	2005-07-22 02:13:00	Ninja, Feel free to write a script that spams my medic site to a few thousand people, I could do with the traffic......	Metla (12)
1 2 3 4 5 6