State of Spam Demonstrates Government's Incompetence

[Alex]

Because they are costing me money and time. Some of them send porn to the email address I'd like my kids to use. If I stood on a street corner and handed out stuff like that to kids, I'd get arrested. They are breaking the law - go get 'em.

I'd prefer the industry to clean it up though. Back when AOL and Prodigy were the 'big boys', they could have tackled the problem and fixed it. Just cut off access to any domain found to violate the rules - the problem would get cleaned up really fast.

As CFB said - they are trying to make money, there has to some place accepting the money - go get 'em.

OK, so 3/4 of all email is spam, half of that is large files. That sits on the web servers of my ISP, they spend time/money on filters, they have to charge me for that time/money/equipment. Those spammers are taking money out of my pocket, and making my email less useful.

Yes, I think the government should do something. What, you think it is OK to steal?

I can wipe my own arse, thank you very much.

-ERD50

You don't want your kids exposed to porn on the internet? Then do what parents are supposed to do, control your child and his or her access to the internet. Please stop asking the gov't to do your job.

Or better yet, the next time you get some porn spam sent to your child's e-mail, call the cops. Let us know what happens.

 

[ERD50]

Always a bad idea to respond. Sometimes a bad idea to even read.

True. I learned this from some experts in my computer club.

Turn off the 'automatically load images' in your email application.

Ever notice that with some emails with images (both legit and spam), the images do not load if you are off-line? The images are not actually in the email, there are links to images on a web site somewhere. When you open an email like that, and if you are set to automatically load the images, you have essentially 'visited' that web site. They code your email address into that request to the server, so they get confirmation that you are a valid and living breathing email address.

http://www.rickconner.net/spamweb/pop-check-body.html

There are many variations on this theme. For example, the argument could be a “funny number” (a long alphanumeric code) that contains your address in an encrypted form, or that “points” to your address in some database maintained by the spammer:

If I don't recognize the sender, and it has an image, I junk it.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

You don't want your kids exposed to porn on the internet? Then do what parents are supposed to do, control your child and his or her access to the internet. Please stop asking the gov't to do your job.

Not really practical. Our old email address was getting hit with this junk. It is not a current problem for me, but I sure so not want to see it return.

So, let's see. My daughter comes home, and she wants to check the legitimate emails she gets from , let's say a teacher, her Aunt, Grandmother, or friends. This means I would need to say - no, wait until I can get in there and look, and delete anything offensive. That is not practical, it is reducing the value of my email service, and it *is* costing me money, indirectly, as my ISP and all the internet backbone and everything else required to support this unwanted trash has to be paid for by the end customer.

Or better yet, the next time you get some porn spam sent to your child's e-mail, call the cops. Let us know what happens.

That, I thought, was part of the topic here - the government isn't doing the job.

-ERD50

 

[sgeeeee]

I can see how you might lose a few seconds to Click delete, but money?? how exactly do they cost you money?

I used to work with a real neo-con wing nut. I enjoyed hearing is take on things and occasionally even agreed with his sentiment if not his viewpoint. His view about spammers was that a spam message wasted several seconds of time of several milliion people with each spam message they sent. After several dozen spam messages, they had essentially wasted a lifetime and wasting a lifetime was equivalent to murder. He felt like spamming should be a capital offense.

 

[Tadpole]

The problem is identifying the spammers. Script kiddies take control over a bunch of computers on the net, and use those as spam relays. Makes them pretty much untraceable, so laws have no effect.

And the government thinks they can track terrorists?

 

[savedapile]

there was an article in our paper this week that explained that these spammers can send out millions of messages at once. For instance, they say there is a hot penny stock they have bought some shares in. They explained if even a few hundred people buy the stock their price goes up, they sell and move on. It is a self fulfilling prophecy that the stock goes up. Of course, only the very early buyers make a profit if they sell soon enough. It is very easy to get an e-mail address to send from Yahoo or hotmail then delete them.

We also get a lot about medications, weight loss or male enhancement, verifying our e-bay account, pay-pal account, bank account etc. Huge potential for identity theft.

 

[lets-retire]

I used to receive a lot of spam e-mail in my inbox. I checked my email account and there was a filter setting that said "exclusive" this allows me to receive only e-mail in my inbox I have told the filter to send there. No more spam has gone to my e-mail and the only time I go through the junk box is when I go to a new site and have to put someone on my approved list.

 

[ERD50]

... After several dozen spam messages, they had essentially wasted a lifetime and wasting a lifetime was equivalent to murder. He felt like spamming should be a capital offense.

OK, capital punishment is a *bit* over the top, but you are very naive or simply uninformed if you don't think this is costing us money and time. Your ISP and business IT people spend money and time fighting this stuff, installing filters ( someone has to write that software), constantly updating those filters to try to fight new versions of spam, and additional equipment to support all this extra traffic. We pay for that in our ISP costs and in product prices. Those people could be doing something productive.

edit/add: And, once in a while, a business gets it's network totally shut down over a flood of spam. That can cost them lost business, certainly lost productivity.

And the government thinks they can track terrorists?

I don't think the government has been motivated to stop these spammer creeps. They could if they wanted. Since many of these things originate outside our borders, it makes it trickier, but it could be done.

I used to receive a lot of spam e-mail in my inbox. I checked my email account and there was a filter setting that said "exclusive" this allows me to receive only e-mail in my inbox I have told the filter to send there. No more spam has gone to my e-mail and the only time I go through the junk box is when I go to a new site and have to put someone on my approved list.

That is effective for some situations, but you do run the risk of missing a legitimate email from someone trying to contact you that is not on your list. That would not be practical for many businesses. And, it still does not address the fact that all that spam traffic is costing the ISP ands IT people money and time.

That made me think - what if the emails that were not on your 'whitelist' were returned (most spam fakes the return address) with one of those graphics that include a picture of password. Instruct the sender to include that password in the title. You could 'whitelist' anything with that password in the title, and change it anytime you wish. Eventually, spammers will develop sophisticated readers to decode this, but it would work now and for many years - just like password protecting your network, thieves will find the easy targets.

-ERD50

 

[Alex]

And the government thinks they can track terrorists?

.....well, some of the folks on this forum want to turn over health care to the very same gov't. Imagine the clusterf**K that would be!!

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

The other aspect is that a huge percentage of internet bandwidth and a lot of overload problems with email servers is caused by spam. The costs of dealing with this are passed by the ISP's on to the users.

So its not just a little problem that is easily avoided and "nobodys business".

Pretty much the equivalent of someone throwing large orange cones out of the back of their pickup truck as they drive down the highway.

 

[Alex]

Pretty much the equivalent of someone throwing large orange cones out of the back of their pickup truck as they drive down the highway.

I've been there, done that. I had a truck in front of me dumping orange cones all over the freeway. They were flying out of the back of the truck at 70MPH. It was a blast! oh yeah, and very colorful! And , the best part is, just like SPAM there was absolutely no damage to my vehicle either!! I hit hundreds of the little buggers and they bounced right off my vehicle!

 

[ERD50]

just like SPAM there was absolutely no damage

So you are standing by your statement that Spam is nothing more than a slight inconvenience, and a few click/deletes is all the damage that is done?

Talk to some IT people in a large corporation, or actually read some stuff on the web about it. For some strange reason, you seem to be in denial about this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_(electronic)#Costs_of_spam

Costs of spam

The California legislature found that spam cost United States organizations alone more than $10 billion in 2004, including lost productivity and the additional equipment, software, and manpower needed to combat the problem.

Are you planning on retiring by running a spam outfit?

-ERD50

 

[sgeeeee]

I'm surprised. I really thought the capital punishment for spamming idea would get more traction on this board.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Oh I think if you put a $50 bounty on them, there'd be plenty of shooting and few people calling for any recourse.

 

[Alex]

So you are standing by your statement that Spam is nothing more than a slight inconvenience, and a few click/deletes is all the damage that is done?

Talk to some IT people in a large corporation, or actually read some stuff on the web about it. For some strange reason, you seem to be in denial about this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_(electronic)#Costs_of_spam

Are you planning on retiring by running a spam outfit?

-ERD50

I read your link and must admit that I am not impressed by it. The cited figures are really nothing more than a guess. SWAG (scientific wild ass Guess) put out by people with nothing better to do than waste time, the overpaid and underworked employees of the state of CA!

Seriously, I don't know anyone that doesn't waste at least hour or two a week (more probably a day!) doing personal things at work. SO deleting a few junk mails is the least of corporate worries.

PS: An argument could probably be made that SPAM actually "creates" jobs. IT jobs are high paid and usually have great benefits. Are you against high paying jobs with benefits

 

[ERD50]

I read your link and must admit that I am not impressed by it. The cited figures are really nothing more than a guess. SWAG (scientific wild ass Guess

Of course they are a SWAG - how could anyone possibly come up with an EXACT figure?

Makes no diff, time, effort, money are wasted fighting spam. $10B, 5B, 1B - still a lot of wasted $$$.

Seriously, I don't know anyone that doesn't waste at least hour or two a week (more probably a day!) doing personal things at work. SO deleting a few junk mails is the least of corporate worries.

So, because people do waste some time at work, making them waste more is OK? Strange logic. We can just keep adding time wasters until zero work is done, and each time waster is OK because there are other time wasters? Wonderful world that would be.

And, you conveniently ignore that spam sometimes shuts down a companies mail system. Someone can't get a quote form you? They go to your competitor. Lost a sale - that is not good business.

PS: An argument could probably be made that SPAM actually "creates" jobs. IT jobs are high paid and usually have great benefits. Are you against high paying jobs with benefits

Go back to ECON 101. 'Creating' jobs does not create value. If that was the case, we could solve all the worlds economy problems by paying people to do anything or nothing at all. Where would the money come from, if they are not creating value? The only jobs worth creating are those that create value, or support the people that create value.

-ERD50

 

[Craig]

wab, you hit it ... they call them "bots" ... like robots. Individual is crusing the 'net on their home computer, visits a web site that downloads software on their computer, unbeknownst to them ... that software wipes out their anti-spy software, and installs itself. It is then used to effectively launder emails ... spam is sent to the bot, and the bot sends it out to the eventual recipient.

Alex, I empathize with your pessimism about government solving this ... but spam does cost us all a ton of money.

This past week our server was down for about a day and a half ... due to spam. They say they block 15 for every one that is now getting through. They believe this latest attack was coming from Russia, using about 75,000 bots ... who knows for sure. It cost us lost productivity, and instead of solving some real IT issues and creating tools we need ... our IT folks and consultants were fending off a spam attack.

Our IT folks report to me, and our IT Director is increasingly concerned about all of this. Frankly, if it continues to grow, it will make the 'net less and less usable. We'll need to see some very creative measures to stop this abuse, but I don't know what can be done on an international scale. Will be interesting.

And, I don't know about you folks, but I'm seeing phishing on almost a daily basis now ... eBay (getting better), PayPal, banks, credit unions, etc. I send 'em all to spoof@"institutionname".com. I wonder how many come from Nigeria ... at least those "I am the assistant to the Imperial Secretary of Eastern Congo, and I need your help ..." are humorous.

By the way ... psst ... there's a new stock, SPAM ... set to EXPLODE! Get on the bandwagon now before you miss that uptick!

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I take it back...spam is the best thing ever.

Just looked in my google spam and it contained the subject:

"Important: to extenuate the butthole"

 

[HFWR]

Priceless...

 

[Alex]

Of course they are a SWAG - how could anyone possibly come up with an EXACT figure?

Makes no diff, time, effort, money are wasted fighting spam. $10B, 5B, 1B - still a lot of wasted $$$.

So, because people do waste some time at work, making them waste more is OK? Strange logic. We can just keep adding time wasters until zero work is done, and each time waster is OK because there are other time wasters? Wonderful world that would be.

And, you conveniently ignore that spam sometimes shuts down a companies mail system. Someone can't get a quote form you? They go to your competitor. Lost a sale - that is not good business.

Go back to ECON 101. 'Creating' jobs does not create value. If that was the case, we could solve all the worlds economy problems by paying people to do anything or nothing at all. Where would the money come from, if they are not creating value? The only jobs worth creating are those that create value, or support the people that create value.

-ERD50

Yeah, sure. Everyone's time is so f'n important. Thats why you never post on an internet forum, check your personal e-mail, or talk to your friends while at work?? : Gimme a break. The average worker in the USA (according to the linked article) wastes 2 hrs per day! Hows about a little reality check? If spam is the biggest problem you have, you are a very lucky person.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) – It probably will take you a few minutes to read this article, which won't put too much of a dent in your workday, right?

But add to that the time you spend trolling (elsewhere on) the Internet, chatting with colleagues about your life or Lhasa Apsos, booking your next vacation, and making all those – admit it -- aimless phone calls to your spouse or friends.

Before you know it, you've killed a couple of hours, not including lunch.

Apparently, that's typical for the American worker, according to a survey released Monday by Salary.com and AOL, a unit of Time Warner, CNN/Money.com's parent company.

More than 10,000 respondents in the online survey admitted to wasting, on average, 2.09 hours per day.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/08/pf/wastedtime_job/

 

[ERD50]

Yeah, sure.

... Hows about a little reality check? If spam is the biggest problem you have ...

Alex, you seem so stuck on your position that spam is a small problem, that it doesn't really bother anybody. You have not listened to what other people and sources have told you. Look at Charles post on his real life experience. His company experienced a total waste of valuable resources.

I'm not going to try to convince you any further. You have made up your mind. Your only answer seems to be 'is not!'.

I like a good discussion. I like to be proven wrong, so that I can learn. I don't like contradiction.

bye - ERD50

 

[Alex]

Ok ERD - you're right. Spam is simply the biggest problem we face in american the world today. It is, in all reality, an absolutely "hah-yooge" problem that causes misery and pain for millions billions of people all over the planet galaxy. All perpetrators of spam should be publicly executed. Feel better?

 

[sgeeeee]

Ok ERD - you're right. Spam is simply the biggest problem we face in american the world today. It is, in all reality, an absolutely "hah-yooge" problem that causes misery and pain for millions billions of people all over the planet galaxy. All perpetrators of spam should be publicly executed. Feel better?

I'm glad the capital punishment idea has resurfaced.

 

[Craig]

Troll alert ...

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Troll alert ...

Ding! Ding! Ding!