Jump to content

IanDavid

Members
  • Content Count

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About IanDavid

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.imwithstupid.org
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Boston, MA
  • Interests
    Science, Sci-Fi, reading, movies, Humanism, Brights, Skepticism
  1. Since 90% of the spam I receive (in Hong Kong) is advertising US companies, perhaps it would be more useful if the rest of the world stopped doing business with the USA. Good point. But I think one key difference is that our government has made a legislative effort (albeit a lame one) to address the problem. If China wanted to solve their spam problem, they are one of the few countries in a position to do so overnight. It's a lot easier to shut-down a spamhaven than a student democracy protest. They're already shutting-down anyone that allows access to computer games that are unfavorable to their politics, or anyone who sends emails saying that Tibet should be free. If they're going to be a repressive facist regime, then for once it should work to the world's favor. The only answer is, the Chinese government likes it that way. Our government does not-- we're just too inept to do anything effective about it. Also, I make distinctions between China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Taiwan is not China, and Hong Kong is still playing by a shrinking set of different rules. I have gotten very little spam from Hong Kong. And it's not so much a matter of where the spam email is coming from that frustrates me, as the fact that the spamvertised sites are almost always in China. You won't find very many hosts in the US that don't delete spammer's websites. We just have a whole lot of exploitable open-relays due to negligence and sloppiness and short-sidededness. But there are companies in China that lovingly coddle spammers and couldn't care less about spam complaints. That is the key issue: Who is hosting their sites, who is providing aid and comfort. They can send all the email they want, from wherever they want, but without a willing co-conspirator to host them, they would fade away. Oh, I forgot to mention that all those American spammers sending spam to Hong Kong are probably getting the addresses from a CD-ROM of Chinese email addresses I saw advertised on the China Netcom address. Can we buy one of those disks to send "Free Tibet" messages sent through Netcom's servers?
  2. Since 90% of the spam I receive (in Hong Kong) is advertising US companies, perhaps it would be more useful if the rest of the world stopped doing business with the USA. Good point. But I think one key difference is that our government has made a legislative effort (albeit a lame one) to address the problem. If China wanted to solve their spam problem, they are one of the few countries in a position to do so overnight. It's a lot easier to shut-down a spamhaven than a student democracy protest. They're already shutting-down anyone that allows access to computer games that are unfavorable to their politics, or anyone who sends emails saying that Tibet should be free. If they're going to be a repressive facist regime, then for once it should work to the world's favor. The only answer is, the Chinese government likes it that way. Our government does not-- we're just too inept to do anything effective about it. Also, I make distinctions between China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Taiwan is not China, and Hong Kong is still playing by a shrinking set of different rules. I have gotten very little spam from Hong Kong. And it's not so much a matter of where the spam email is coming from that frustrates me, as the fact that the spamvertised sites are almost always in China. You won't find very many hosts in the US that don't delete spammer's websites. We just have a whole lot of exploitable open-relays due to negligence and sloppiness and short-sidededness. But there are companies in China that lovingly coddle spammers and couldn't care less about spam complaints. That is the key issue: Who is hosting their sites, who is providing aid and comfort. They can send all the email they want, from wherever they want, but without a willing co-conspirator to host them, they would fade away.
  3. Just a small detail ... but there is a lot of that stuff actually manufactured there .. You could refuse to sell the stuff, but what would stop the same items from disappearing from a loading dock somewhere along the line? I know it would only be a symbolic gesture, at best. It's too bad the U.N. can't send in "spam Inspectors."
  4. Apparently, AOL and their ilk have their tipping point set at a very high level. They think they are (or soon will be) a monopoly, and that we're stuck with them. My recent dealings with them as a case in point, "No, we promise to fix the problem, but we refuse to have anyone get back to you about it." AOL has abandoned any pretense of caring about their customers (what else is new?) It helps to know there is a website that tells you how to swear at someone in Hindi. http://www.insults.net/html/swear/hindi.html I also vaguely remember a phrase one of my counselors at summer camp taught us once (I'm reaching back about 20 years into my memory, so please take that into account). It was something like: Bagwhan d'or or bagall rhat dori... Supposed to be, "God's worst nightmare run amok" It's not necessarily an insult, but colorful. Again, I hadn't thought about that phrase in 20 years, so it probably isn't anywhere near accurate. I just hope I didn't accidentally say something really vulgar. Since AOL doesn't care to listen to their customers, I would hesitate to guess any other means of bringing them to their tipping point. I believe we already have a ban on technology exports to China of computer technology that could be used in weapons systems. How about an embargo of equipment that can be used to send spam? I noticed that Cisco seems to be very proud of sending their routers to China Netcom. I wish they would stop. It would be nice to stop selling routers, servers, computers, modems, etc. to China.
  5. IanDavid

    Spamtrap addresses

    But if johnsmith <at> aol ever figures out that you're behind his sudden increase in his spam load ....<g> Gee whiz, I didn't think to check if there really was a JohnSmith <at> aol.com How about we use an example that couldn't possibly trouble anyone. Maybe we should use ScottRichterNOSPAM422[at]Yahoo.com as an example, instead of JohnSmithNOSPAM[at]aol.com Or maybe Scott_NO_HIGH_VOLUME_EMAIL_DEPLOYMENT_Richter422[at]yahoo.com
  6. Yes, I did post it a while back, but it was in an old thread that nobody seemed to be reading any more (and it didn't get any feedback) so I was hoping it would be OK to re-post in a more active thread. I hope that wasn't a terrible breach of netiquite?
  7. IanDavid

    Spamtrap addresses

    I wasn't thinking in terms of testing whether the spammers had the technology to remove NOSPAM from an email address and such. I was thinking in terms of, have they made a deliberate effort to harvest and exploit email addresses that are obviously intended to be "opted-out." The answer of course would be yes, but I think it would be more damning as evidence of misconduct if we had spamtraps to demonstrate that activity. Then again, to paraphrase Scott Richter, perhaps the email addresses should be something like: John_NO_HIGH_VOLUME_EMAIL_DEPLOYMENT_smith[at]aol.com (remove "no high volume email deployment" from address). I was also thinking that instead of having a reporting system that sends a spam complaint to the host of each spamvertised website, you could have a system that sends all spam complaints to all websites that were spamvertised that day. In other words, if a series of spamtraps get 1,000 spams one day from 100 different hosting servers, each of those 100 hosts gets copies of all 1,000 spams.
  8. IanDavid

    What's that? We play dirty too?

    Would it be a good idea to purchase a spam list from a company, and then use it to send a spam saying: "I bought your email address from this spammer. Here is his email address." "He says you opted-in." "Call him here, at his home phone number, and opt-out." "If you live in his neighborhood, this is his address if you want to stop by and chat."
  9. IanDavid

    What's that? We play dirty too?

    In case anyone is interested, I located a spammer's database of affiliates left on an open web page in the google cache. There are about 6,000 contacts in it with name, email, phone number, and the particular spam program they are enrolled in. I could post it here, email it, whatever, if someone is interested. I already provided a copy to the lawyer representing AOL in their lawsuits against the spammers, and he seemed pretty pleased with it, but too busy to talk much about it. I found it because my name was in it-- the bastards caught me in a phishing scheme along with seven other people who thought they were dealing with McAfee. I can tell, because while everyone else is labeled with things like "Downline Builder," the seven other suckers and I are labeled "McAfee." I feel stupid that I was one of only eight people dumb enough to fall for it.
  10. Has anyone else noticed that AOL Time Warner is pursuing business partnerships with the very same spam-havens hosting the spammers they are suing? That's like the cops going into a crack house and arresting the drug addicts, while they give the operators of the crack house a big loan to expand their business. I refer in particular to America OnLine's dealings with China Telecom and Netcom. And the last time I checked, Yahoo! was already partnered with Verio, another major spam-mill-- yet Yahoo! is also suing verio-hosted spammers. AOL confirmed looking into this Faustian bargain as far back at least as March 2003 http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2003/m...30328bus17.html http://www.etexpo.com/shownews.asp?ID=276 “We’re talking about business (with China Telecom and Netcom), but we didn’t talk about a partnership yet,” she said. The AOL spokesman confirmed that the venture was looking at possibly bringing in an additional partner. As of March 2004, AOL appears to be courting the same strange bedfellows http://www.chinesesource.com/get_detail.cfm?id=1040 http://www.newsgd.com/business/enterprise/200403010031.htm "Likely candidates could include China's mobile phone giants of China Mobile (Hong Kong) Ltd and China Unicom Ltd; and its top two fixed line carriers, China Telecom and China Netcom, which have both spent millions of dollars over the last two years to build out their high-speed Internet networks. " And then there's the fact that one of AOL's board members is on something like The U.S. China Board of Trade. I forget her name, but the information is somewhere on my other computer. She was also something like "trade ambassador" to China. And I bet if we dug around a little, we would find that AOL already has relationships with some of the other foreign spam mills, particularly in Italy and Korea. Does anyone want to resarch and publish on this with me? Specifically, which of the spammers AOL is suing are hosted on the spam havens that AOL has (or is pursuing) partnerships with. These lawsuits against spammers by AOL are just window-dressing. They're blowing smoke to hide the fact that they are not only doing squat to stop spam, they are also actively pursuing alliances with the source. If AOL really wanted to stop spam, they would not only stop pursuing business with spam mills, but block all traffic from them. AOL knows China Telecom and Netcom are the ones sending most of the spam to AOL accounts. They know what to do about it, but they won't. I say, let's call them to task for it.
  11. IanDavid

    Spamtrap addresses

    One thing I have been wondering about is the effectiveness of email addresses like: JohnsmithNOSPAM[at]aol.com (remove the words "no spam" from the email address" Or John Smith at AOL dot com Do many spammers actually spam those addresses? Do we / should we set spam traps like those?
  12. IanDavid

    SpamCop has became worst than spam :-(

    I'm sorry, but this guy from Rumania is running a mail server through a dial-up for a "school project" and he won't tell us the IP addresses he is using, or the name of his ISP? And his project is to create a system to control home appliances by email from anywhere in the world, yet he can't figure out how to keep his email from bouncing? And, I presume, if he is testing his "project," he would be sending email to willing participants using his client software. HE HAS NO LEGITIMATE REASON TO BE SENDING EMAIL TO ANYONE WHO HAS NOT "WHITELISTED" HIM, OR FOR THAT MATTER, TO ANYONE WHO DOES NOT KNOW HIM. My B.S. meter is going off the scale. When he says he wants to control home appliances, does he really mean, "take control" by using a trojan horse? I am absolutely CERTAIN the guy is lying. And I would bet that his "project" is to send a trojan horse that will allow him to control X-10 modules on infected computers. Modules controling, for example, lighting, security systems, and cameras. Imagine if, before robbing a house, you could access cameras in the house to see if anyone is home and to scout likely locations where the valuables may be. Then, you turn off all the lights and disable the alarm system. Most likely though, he just wants to see naked people. Is there a way to check the SpamCop report logs to see if there is any activity consistent with this? Maybe HackerWatch can help?
  13. IanDavid

    Spammer Rules

    New rule: Spammers will object when you do the same things to them that they do to you-- including, but not limited to, having to receive email they do not want.
  14. Has anyone else noticed that AOL Time Warner is pursuing business partnerships with the very same spam-havens hosting the spammers they are suing? That's like the cops going into a crack house and arresting the drug addicts, while they give the operators of the crack house a big loan to expand their business. I refer in particular to America OnLine's dealings with China Telecom and Netcom. And the last time I checked, Yahoo! was already partnered with Verio, another major spam-mill-- yet Yahoo! is also suing verio-hosted spammers. AOL confirmed looking into this Faustian bargain as far back at least as March 2003 http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2003/m...30328bus17.html http://www.etexpo.com/shownews.asp?ID=276 “We’re talking about business (with China Telecom and Netcom), but we didn’t talk about a partnership yet,” she said. The AOL spokesman confirmed that the venture was looking at possibly bringing in an additional partner. As of March 2004, AOL appears to be courting the same strange bedfellows http://www.chinesesource.com/get_detail.cfm?id=1040 http://www.newsgd.com/business/enterprise/200403010031.htm "Likely candidates could include China's mobile phone giants of China Mobile (Hong Kong) Ltd and China Unicom Ltd; and its top two fixed line carriers, China Telecom and China Netcom, which have both spent millions of dollars over the last two years to build out their high-speed Internet networks. " And then there's the fact that one of AOL's board members is on something like The U.S. China Board of Trade. I forget her name, but the information is somewhere on my other computer. She was also something like "trade ambassador" to China. And I bet if we dug around a little, we would find that AOL already has relationships with some of the other foreign spam mills, particularly in Italy and Korea. Does anyone want to resarch and publish on this with me? Specifically, which of the spammers AOL is suing are hosted on the spam havens that AOL has (or is pursuing) partnerships with. These lawsuits against spammers by AOL are just window-dressing. They're blowing smoke to hide the fact that they are not only doing squat to stop spam, they are also actively pursuing alliances with the source. If AOL really wanted to stop spam, they would not only stop pursuing business with spam mills, but block all traffic from them. AOL knows China Telecom and Netcom are the ones sending most of the spam to AOL accounts. They know what to do about it, but they won't. I say, let's call them to task for it.
  15. IanDavid

    Can't Report AOL Spam anymore

    Type of account not specified .. but a filtered e-mail account has the capability of obtaining the e-mail directly from the AOL InBox ..??? Unfortunately, that is the way AOL has been formatting the incoming headers. My suspicion is that AOL is deliberately obfuscating INCOMING email headers. Hence, the "structural problems." The AOL Communicator program I am using is an IMAP application: http://www.aolepk.com/communicator/factsheet.html Easy management of multiple mailboxes in one place allows members to read and send e-mail messages from all of their AOL Screen Names as well as standards-based e-mail accounts, such as POP and IMAP, from a single application. No more logging in to multiple accounts to check various mailboxes. For More Information Jaymelina Esmele America Online, Inc. (703) 265-1746 My AOL email is configured to automatically block messages from anyone not in my address book. This has stopped working. spam from strangers is suddenly showing up in my inbox. I sent an email from my Spamcop email account to my AOL account and tried to submit a spam report. It didn't work. So, it is not a clever trick that the spammers are using. The problem effects all email inbound to my AOL account. So, either I am being stupid and screwing things up, or else AOL has deliberately done something to hinder us from reporting incoming spam. Neither one would surprise me, as I have been known to be stupid, and AOL has been known to be a bunch of assholes. I'm going to try retreiving my AOL mail through Eudora or Outlook and see how that goes, but I am not hopeful. My guess is that the obfuscation occurs before I read the mail off the server. But it's worth a try. Thanks!
×