MASSIVE LAWSUIT AGAINST SCOTT RICHTER...

[Miss Betsy]

Those of us who have to pay the costs of the resources used to send the spam are unhappy (not to mention damaged, in the legal sense,

Then you choose an ISP who controls those costs by not allowing spammers to operate from his network and charges more to those who accept anything. Since most people would limit their bulk email to what they requested, and white hat ISP's would make sure legitimate bulk emailers used the bulk email marker and block those IP addresses who were irresponsible or negligent by not requiring that of their bulk emailers, most people would only get legitimate email at a reasonable price from those they want email from .

Since the ones who buy from spam are looking for a bargain, they may even choose to have their bulk email blocked because it is cheaper. The spammers may have to use confirmed opt in to reach their victims. There may be ISP's who are permanently blocked by white hat ISP's. Then those who want to get all those porn emails can get service from someone who is willing to charge more to let you get them.

Miss Betsy

[HillsCap]

I don't want to be disrespectful, Miss Betsy, because I know that you contribute a great deal of information to these discussion threads, but I don't know of ANY ISPs that operate that way.

Besides, even if an ISP did block the unwanted emails, they would have to do so AT THEIR SERVERS (because they'd have to classify the spam AS spam, meaning the servers would have to parse through the entire body of the email first), meaning that the bandwidth required to transmit the spam has already been consumed by that ISP (as well as the CPU time), and therefore that ISP has to pay for that bandwidth (and additional computing resources) (and they WILL pass that cost on to you, the end user). If they're doing IP blocking, it mitigates that somewhat, but I can tell you from experience with running the JackPot fake SMTP server that the spammers will:

a) send through open relays (of which there are thousands)

send through RATs (of which there are hundreds of thousands)

c) otherwise obfuscate their IP address

I've had one single spammer (sending the same message from each location) send to me over the course of a day from over 300 IP addresses and 12 different ISPs. Obviously, he was tapped into the RAT pool, using them as open proxies.

Blocking all those IP addresses would be prohibitively expensive in terms of time and manpower, and when those RAT-infected computers get fixed, how do you know to remove it from the list of blocked IPs? Especially if it's on a dynamic IP address? Do you block list an entire ISP (like Road Runner, one of the most anti-spam ISPs out there, yet a large contributor to IP addresses I'm picking up from this particular spammer)? Where does it stop? When you've Block Listed the entire internet? That's been tried before.

No, I've already got the most effective method to stopping spam... it doesn't entail reconfiguring the email transport protocol and infrastructure, it doesn't require finding a new ISP that magically blocks spam without incurring extra costs associated with CPU time and bandwidth and spam blocking software, it doesn't require new anti-spam legislation, it requires people to stop complaining about the problem, and become an active part of the solution.

It requires taking action... if you saw a theft in progress on the street, would you not report it to the police? Of course, everyone would. Yet, with spam (a theft of our resources) most people are content (or conditioned) to simply hit the 'Delete' key, mutter "OK, spammer, here's a tiny bit more of my time and money and bandwidth... gosh I hate you.", but never do anything more about it!

They should be reporting it... to SpamCop, to the other Block Lists, to their ISPs, to the ISPs of the spam sender, to the BBB and State Attorneys General for U.S. spammers, to the Federal Trade Commission, and in the case of spam hawking medicine, to the FDA. Granted, I've got it all automated, so it only takes three clicks per spam to accomplish all this, but there's no reason others couldn't do the same.

And for those who believe in pro-active crime prevention, they can do like I do... I walk right up to the spammer thief and kick him in the crotch. If you send me spam, your spamming days are definitely numbered. It's not vigilantism to protect your time and resources from abuse, even by pro-active means.

[yourbuddy]

And for those who believe in pro-active crime prevention, they can do like I do... I walk right up to the spammer thief and kick him in the crotch. If you send me spam, your spamming days are definitely numbered. It's not vigilantism to protect your time and resources from abuse, even by pro-active means.

"pro-active crime prevention"

is that like "pre-emptive warfare".

Fortunately, you are wrong in the part of your post quoted.

You are not entitled to "pro-active crime prevention", but you are

entitled to "crime prevention" if there is "imminent danger" and the

action you take is commensurate with the "crime" being prevented.

If someone "breaks into your house" you do not have the right

to "kill them" - since the punishment for "break and enter" is not

"summary execution". Your sense of outrage may be high, but this

is not justified. In fact, you would be charged with "murder".

In regard to your "spam" warfare, interference in a "lawful" practice

(particularly in Interstate Commerce) can get you lots of trouble.

[loafman]

If someone "breaks into your house" you do not have the right

to "kill them" - since the punishment for "break and enter" is not

"summary execution". Your sense of outrage may be high, but this

is not justified. In fact, you would be charged with "murder".

No, but if they have a gun and you fear for your life or the life of anyone in the area, then you can kill them in self-defense. If you do use it though, make sure its fatal. Nothing is more dangerous than an injured animal, except perhaps for an injured animal that gets a lawyer.

...Ken

[yourbuddy]

If someone "breaks into your house" you do not have the right

to "kill them" - since the punishment for "break and enter" is not

"summary execution". Your sense of outrage may be high, but this

is not justified. In fact, you would be charged with "murder".

No, but if they have a gun and you fear for your life or the life of anyone in the area, then you can kill them in self-defense. If you do use it though, make sure its fatal. Nothing is more dangerous than an injured animal, except perhaps for an injured animal that gets a lawyer.

...Ken

Close, and interesting amateur advice (but not quite correct).

Also, the act of self-defense does not authorize summary execution,

it only authorizes "self-defense" to the degree that is necessary.

[tdub]

-signed

[loafman]

If someone "breaks into your house" you do not have the right

to "kill them" - since the punishment for "break and enter" is not

"summary execution". Your sense of outrage may be high, but this

is not justified. In fact, you would be charged with "murder".

No, but if they have a gun and you fear for your life or the life of anyone in the area, then you can kill them in self-defense. If you do use it though, make sure its fatal. Nothing is more dangerous than an injured animal, except perhaps for an injured animal that gets a lawyer.

...Ken

Close, and interesting amateur advice (but not quite correct).

Also, the act of self-defense does not authorize summary execution,

it only authorizes "self-defense" to the degree that is necessay.

Like I said, if you honestly fear that he may kill you or other, it is legal to defend yourself. If you are ex-police, you may be expected to know how to disable someone, but I'm not going to take a chance that he gets off a shot. If he points a gun at me, he's dead unless he shoots me first. If I do manage to disable I won't put another shot into him, but I'm going for the final solution on the first shot. At this point my life is worth more than his, and I'm not taking chances.

By your attitude you obviously are not a Texan. I'm glad of that.

...Ken

[turetzsr]

Those of us who have to pay the costs of the resources used to send the spam are unhappy (not to mention damaged, in the legal sense,

Then you choose an ISP who controls those costs by not allowing spammers to operate from his network and charges more to those who accept anything. Since most people would limit their bulk email to what they requested, and white hat ISP's would make sure legitimate bulk emailers used the bulk email marker and block those IP addresses who were irresponsible or negligent by not requiring that of their bulk emailers, most people would only get legitimate email at a reasonable price from those they want email from .

<snip>

...You've mentioned only the direct costs we're charged by our ISPs. We're all paying for spammers because they use resources for which we all pay. Until spammers pay the full costs of their activity, those costs will be borne by all of us.

[turetzsr]

If someone "breaks into your house" you do not have the right

to "kill them" - since the punishment for "break and enter" is not

"summary execution". Your sense of outrage may be high, but this

is not justified. In fact, you would be charged with "murder".

No, but if they have a gun and you fear for your life or the life of anyone in the area, then you can kill them in self-defense. If you do use it though, make sure its fatal. Nothing is more dangerous than an injured animal, except perhaps for an injured animal that gets a lawyer.

...Ken

Close, and interesting amateur advice (but not quite correct).

Also, the act of self-defense does not authorize summary execution,

it only authorizes "self-defense" to the degree that is necessay.

Like I said, if you honestly fear that he may kill you or other, it is legal to defend yourself.

<snip>

...That doesn't contradict yourbuddy's rebuttal point that "the act of self-defense does not authorize summary execution, it only authorizes 'self-defense' to the degree that is necessay [ sic ]. If you can save your life by use of less than lethal force, then you are obligated (in all the states in which I've lived, at least, maybe not in Texas <g> ) to stop short of killing the intruder.

[loafman]

If someone "breaks into your house" you do not have the right

to "kill them" - since the punishment for "break and enter" is not

"summary execution". Your sense of outrage may be high, but this

is not justified. In fact, you would be charged with "murder".

No, but if they have a gun and you fear for your life or the life of anyone in the area, then you can kill them in self-defense. If you do use it though, make sure its fatal. Nothing is more dangerous than an injured animal, except perhaps for an injured animal that gets a lawyer.

...Ken

Close, and interesting amateur advice (but not quite correct).

Also, the act of self-defense does not authorize summary execution,

it only authorizes "self-defense" to the degree that is necessay.

Like I said, if you honestly fear that he may kill you or other, it is legal to defend yourself.

<snip>

...That doesn't contradict yourbuddy's rebuttal point that "the act of self-defense does not authorize summary execution, it only authorizes 'self-defense' to the degree that is necessay [ sic ]. If you can save your life by use of less than lethal force, then you are obligated (in all the states in which I've lived, at least, maybe not in Texas <g> ) to stop short of killing the intruder.

I know the intent of the law, but the reality is that if I'm in my home with a burgler pointing a gun in my direction I have to assume that he's going to shoot. To do otherwise would be foolish and suicidal. If I could guarantee that I could disable him, then I would, but I'm not that good of a shot, so I'd just go for the body to make sure of a hit. OTOH, if it's my family at risk, I'd go straight for the kill shot and take my chances with the courts.

I know this is not the "politically correct" attitude, but at the point of choice, the life of myself and my family are more important than preserving the life of a criminal.

...Ken

[yourbuddy]

I know the intent of the law, but the reality is that if I'm in my home with a burgler pointing a gun in my direction I have to assume that he's going to shoot.  To do otherwise would be foolish and suicidal.  If I could guarantee that I could disable him, then I would, but I'm not that good of a shot, so I'd just go for the body to make sure of a hit.  OTOH, if it's my family at risk, I'd go straight for the kill shot and take my chances with the courts.

I know this is not the "politically correct" attitude, but at the point of choice, the life of myself and my family are more important than preserving the life of a criminal.

...Ken

The "politically correct" (as you put it) is not relevant at all.

The "intent" of the Law - is THE LAW, it's not your personal choice.

The result is "Jail Time - Big Time" in a Texas jail for you Ken.

The time can be spent considering the advice given to you.

[turetzsr]

If someone "breaks into your house" you do not have the right

to "kill them" - since the punishment for "break and enter" is not

"summary execution". Your sense of outrage may be high, but this

is not justified. In fact, you would be charged with "murder".

No, but if they have a gun and you fear for your life or the life of anyone in the area, then you can kill them in self-defense. If you do use it though, make sure its fatal. Nothing is more dangerous than an injured animal, except perhaps for an injured animal that gets a lawyer.

...Ken

Close, and interesting amateur advice (but not quite correct).

Also, the act of self-defense does not authorize summary execution,

it only authorizes "self-defense" to the degree that is necessay.

Like I said, if you honestly fear that he may kill you or other, it is legal to defend yourself.

<snip>

...That doesn't contradict yourbuddy's rebuttal point that "the act of self-defense does not authorize summary execution, it only authorizes 'self-defense' to the degree that is necessay [ sic ]. If you can save your life by use of less than lethal force, then you are obligated (in all the states in which I've lived, at least, maybe not in Texas <g> ) to stop short of killing the intruder.

I know the intent of the law, but the reality is that if I'm in my home with a burgler pointing a gun in my direction I have to assume that he's going to shoot. To do otherwise would be foolish and suicidal. If I could guarantee that I could disable him, then I would, but I'm not that good of a shot, so I'd just go for the body to make sure of a hit. OTOH, if it's my family at risk, I'd go straight for the kill shot and take my chances with the courts.

I know this is not the "politically correct" attitude, but at the point of choice, the life of myself and my family are more important than preserving the life of a criminal.

...Ken

...Agreed. This clarification of the situation you were apparently assuming but left unwritten would certainly seem to justify deadly force IIUC. My (totally unsupported) suspicion is that this scenario doesn't happen very often, that the typical B & E is an unarmed invasion. Even here in the Detroit area, formerly murder capitol of the U.S., news stories about situations such as the one you describe are extremely rare -- on the order of once a decade.

...Even in a situation of an armed home invasion, if you are in a situation in which you could reasonably be expected to save your and your family members' lives without deadly force (the thief has put the gun down and you are hiding, unseen by her/him in a position that allows you to capture and hide it before confronting her/him), then that's what the law would (again, IIUC) require. OTOH, if an ordinary reasonable prudent person feels that there is no other course of action to ensure innocent people's safety than by use of deadly force, then deadly force may be appropriate.

[yourbuddy]

Anyway, how did this "guy from Texas" get us off the subject

of going after "spammers" in a Legal and productive manner?

Is there something about people from Texas and justification for

pre-emptive action - "just knew you were going to be an evil doer".

[turetzsr]

I know the intent of the law, but the reality is that if I'm in my home with a burgler pointing a gun in my direction I have to assume that he's going to shoot.  To do otherwise would be foolish and suicidal.  If I could guarantee that I could disable him, then I would, but I'm not that good of a shot, so I'd just go for the body to make sure of a hit.  OTOH, if it's my family at risk, I'd go straight for the kill shot and take my chances with the courts.

I know this is not the "politically correct" attitude, but at the point of choice, the life of myself and my family are more important than preserving the life of a criminal.

...Ken

The "politically correct" (as you put it) is not relevant at all.

The "intent" of the Law - is THE LAW, it's not your personal choice.

The result is "Jail Time - Big Time" in a Texas jail for you Ken.

The time can be spent considering the advice given to you.

...Seems to me Ken has accepted that and is saying that his life and that of his family members is more important to him. Under the scenario he poses, I'd take exactly the same position that he does.

[yourbuddy]

I know the intent of the law, but the reality is that if I'm in my home with a burgler pointing a gun in my direction I have to assume that he's going to shoot.  To do otherwise would be foolish and suicidal.  If I could guarantee that I could disable him, then I would, but I'm not that good of a shot, so I'd just go for the body to make sure of a hit.  OTOH, if it's my family at risk, I'd go straight for the kill shot and take my chances with the courts.

I know this is not the "politically correct" attitude, but at the point of choice, the life of myself and my family are more important than preserving the life of a criminal.

...Ken

The "politically correct" (as you put it) is not relevant at all.

The "intent" of the Law - is THE LAW, it's not your personal choice.

The result is "Jail Time - Big Time" in a Texas jail for you Ken.

The time can be spent considering the advice given to you.

...Seems to me Ken has accepted that and is saying that his life and that of his family members is more important to him. Under the scenario he poses, I'd take exactly the same position that he does.

There was an interesting legal case, where a man (whose house had been

broken into several times) set a trap that included a trip wire and a shotgun.

His daughter came home late at night and was killed by the shotgun blast.

The man was charged with murder, and is serving "deserved" time.

[turetzsr]

I know the intent of the law, but the reality is that if I'm in my home with a burgler pointing a gun in my direction I have to assume that he's going to shoot.  To do otherwise would be foolish and suicidal.  If I could guarantee that I could disable him, then I would, but I'm not that good of a shot, so I'd just go for the body to make sure of a hit.  OTOH, if it's my family at risk, I'd go straight for the kill shot and take my chances with the courts.

I know this is not the "politically correct" attitude, but at the point of choice, the life of myself and my family are more important than preserving the life of a criminal.

...Ken

The "politically correct" (as you put it) is not relevant at all.

The "intent" of the Law - is THE LAW, it's not your personal choice.

The result is "Jail Time - Big Time" in a Texas jail for you Ken.

The time can be spent considering the advice given to you.

...Seems to me Ken has accepted that and is saying that his life and that of his family members is more important to him. Under the scenario he poses, I'd take exactly the same position that he does.

There was an interesting legal case, where a man (whose house had been

broken into several times) set a trap that included a trip wire and a shotgun.

His daughter came home late at night and was killed by the shotgun blast.

The man was charged with murder, and is serving "deserved" time.

...Sure sounds like Urban Myth to me! <g>

[yourbuddy]

Sure, so let’s get this straight.

The execution that was previously proposed, has now been

replaced by sitting innocently (you are not a criminal type)

on the couch, watching TV and sipping a Coors - and some

person breaks through you door with guns blazing, and you

just happen to be wearing your gun or have it hidden under

one of the couch cushions (common in Texas, presumably)

and you (‘cause you’re not such a good shot) - aim for this

person’s head and (just by dumb luck) drop'm right there.

Sure, why not - you’ll likely “get off” with self-defense,

but not if it was just an "unarmed" Scotty delivering spam.

Your initial comparison/suggestion was very extreme, and

YES I am glad that I am obviously not a Texan.

[yourbuddy]

...Sure sounds like Urban Myth to me!  <g>

From a case file, and likely from Detroit or Texas

[jms1]

I own two domain names which are no longer used for their original purposes, and have not been for several years. One of them is "delete.net", which has long been a favourite of spammers who want to look like they include a way to stop the flow of pink stuff. If you visit www.delete.net you will see that I have written a page which explains more about the situation.

It also explains the fact that any email sent to any "xxx[at]delete.net" address will cause the sending IP address to be added to the "rbl.delete.net" blacklist, which my server uses (along with spamcop and njabl) as an IP-based filter against spam. The RBL is updated every five minutes.

I set up the auto-blacklist functions back in January, and it has caught over 24,000 IP addresses since then. A search of the database shows 151 IP's being blocked within the 69.6.0.0/18 range, and a massive grep through the messages themselves (yes, I have every one of them archived in case a question comes up) shows 530 messages which originated from this IP block (and none from the others on the original list.)

I still need to check each one to verify that they are spam, but there is very little doubt in my mind that every one will prove to be spam. I've already eyeballed the first 20 or so and they're all spam, sent to email addresses which do not exist, and from which I (who have always been the registrant of both domain names) have never requested anything- advertisements or otherwise.

I am more than happy to submit these messages as evidence, however I'm not sure how much paper it's going to take to print out these emails... my printer is already looking at me with this really hateful look in its eye (it's an HP-1100 and the "big button" kinda looks like an eye, work with me here...)

[dra007]

For those who are new to this place, please remember to sign the petition here!

http://www.petitiononline.com/gt78mt5e/petition.html

[HillsCap]

Hi, all.

I've figured out a work-around to the problem of Unsolicited Commando grabbing ports when it's carrying out its tactical orders, then not releasing those ports when it's done.

I set up Task Scheduler so that UC would run once every two hours, and would be shut down one hour after starting up.

The UC server caches the tactical orders for each UC client, so you can leave the UC client shut down for a while, and when you start it up again, it'll run through all the tactical orders that have been cached for it in quick succession.

This allows you to avoid the build-up of ports that UC grabs and doesn't release, and automates running it so you don't ever have to even think about it.

Works great...

I'm working on a similar solution for the JackPot fake SMTP server / teergrube / honeypot, to work around the memory handles leak. I'll post here when I've got it completed.

Using these solutions, you should be able to run both UC and JackPot for as long as you like without having to manually start them up or shut them down. In other words, they're more 'set it and forget it'.

[Farelf]

More Richter IPs? Somewhere in this topic, it is said Richter uses his own IP addresses. I confess, I have been discomforted by the apparent lack of his IPs in the "Hall of Shame" if he is such a thorough-going spammeister. However it seems just a case of "seek and ye shall find", reference to that listing, with its growing component of IPs with no rDNS, shows a representation of such addresses like 69.63.161.45 (which, interstingly, have been "rotating" since April 28) - currently including

http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=checkblock&ip=69.63.161.38

"Trace IP" from the page has the attribution

abuse[at]above.net abuse[at]optigate.net abuse[at]wcg.net

'Other hosts in this "neighborhood" with spam reports' is a fairly extensive list of hosts which, although I have not checked them, I would expect to be attributed similarly (guessing that "neighborhood" means what it says). HillsCap, when last I looked at http://www.hillscapital.com/richter.txt you weren't including these, perhaps you should?

[Oh yeah, then there's the 1,508 above.net etc. hosts "known to SpamCop" between 69.42.97.11 to 69.42.111.240, inclusive so the answer to the rest of the "Hall of Shame" puzzle is "diffusion."]

[dra007]

Seems the petition signitures have gone down to about one a day or less. Has anyone thought of some way to make this petition widely known without starting a chain mail?

[zachariah]

damn haven't got any "thousands of legitimate live email addresses for only pennies" offers in a while -- I could pass on that wonderful offer to you for use in publicizing the petition

[dra007]

That's a good one zach, that's exactly my point, somene here may come up with a better solution I hope. I thought the petition was a good cause.