Jimemac Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Imagine if this comes true how much more fun us "vigilantes" will have http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5326107/ Jimemac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dra007 Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 We oughtta have our spam reports send to FTC automatically regardless of the bounties....I have had enough from spammers, phishers, sex advertized sites and all such criminal scum.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 The FTC asked Julian to "knock it off" when at one time this was done ... Their servers couldn't keep up with the flow. The assumption is that there is some kind of sorting/analysis done on the incoming, and it just couldn't keep up with the flood of the "automatic" forwards ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest art101 Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Interesting news article, jimemac. I was especially interested in the Direct Marketing Association's take on the idea. Anything the DMA doesn't like is probably something I support. However, Steve Linford (founder of Spamhaus.org and ROKSO) says "It's a terrible idea" and that gives one pause. The Spamhaus position statement on Can-spam is interesting reading. See: http://www.spamhaus.org/position/CAN-SPAM_Act_2003.html Wazoo, when you have a sec, more info on the FTC asking SC to "knock it off," please. I set my SC preferences in the web interface to include UCE at FTC dot GOV as a user-defined recipient. I've read on several anti-spam sites that the FTC wants copies of spam reports sent to that address. That address is also listed on the FTC website. Do you know if I should continue to click that checkbox when sending my reports via the web interface? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 <snip> Wazoo, when you have a sec, more info on the FTC asking SC to "knock it off," please. I set my SC preferences in the web interface to include UCE at FTC dot GOV as a user-defined recipient. I've read on several anti-spam sites that the FTC wants copies of spam reports sent to that address. That address is also listed on the FTC website. Do you know if I should continue to click that checkbox when sending my reports via the web interface? Hi, art101, ...You didn't ask for my feedback but FWIW I'm almost certain the answer to your question is that you may continue to send copies of your reports to FTC. IIUC, FTC just asked Julian to turn off an automatic flow of spam reports to their e-mail address. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 if I should continue to click that checkbox when sending my reports via the web interface As Steve T stated, your sending of your report should go on if you're comfortable doing that. Explanation would be that (looking at http://alpha.cesmail.net/graphics/spamstats.gif ), your one click to send your copy of your spam is just a tick in time, as compared to the "Max spam 41.6 messages per second" that the FTC servers were choking on <g> (numbers may be different when you look, but it's the thought that counts <g>) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest art101 Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Thanks, Wazoo. Your replies made me smile out loud. It's indeed the thought that counts... and the hope we'll reclaim the net someday and live in a spam free world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zachariah Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 more info on the vigilante idea (from one of my earlier posts): Its really sad that the US federal law is so lousy and crushed the (short lived) new and beautiful California law against spam. But, I hope that (under the federal law) at some point reports from SpamCop users are used in court against spammers. It's nice that we are (at least sometimes) shutting down spammers at the source, but we really need to make it so spam doesn't pay. I'd still like to see us to heading down a path such as the one suggested by Lawrence Lessig in his article September 16, 2002, A Bounty on Spammers (pdf) at http://www.lessig.org/content/columns/ which describes his plan. He even risked his career on his convictions... from: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/ed...ial/5778539.htm "... last week, U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D., Calif.) introduced a bill that, if properly implemented by the Federal Trade Commission, would actually work [to eliminate most spam]. I am so confident she is right that I've offered to resign my job if her proposal does not significantly reduce the burden of spam." -- Lawrence Lessig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btech Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 We oughtta have our spam reports send to FTC automatically regardless of the bounties....I have had enough from spammers, phishers, sex advertized sites and all such criminal scum.... I already do. I add uce[at]TC.gov to all my spam reports. Might as well send this spam to "the man" to sort out, since they want to write all these fancy laws about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest art101 Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 Hope that was a typo, brandonplan. It's uce[at]ftc.gov, not uce[at]tc.gov. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dra007 Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 There is a consumer complaint form at this FTC web site that gives a different e-mail address: mailto:spam[at]UCE.GOV You can set up your reports to forward there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 One of my newsgroup postings about that new e-mail address; =-=-=-=- > Phone call got the "closed for the day" message, e-mail > sent asking about the change, why there is no reference > to the old address, what's the difference, etc. ...This new > address is on several of the FTC pages, www.ftc.gov/spam > and sub-links for instance ... OK, called the 1-877-FTC-HELP number, talked to three people that have never heard of the new address, as they also still refer folks to use the uce[at]ftc.gov ... Their only suggestion was for me to dial up 1-202-326-2830, something like Public Referral Office and see if they have a clue as to where the new address might have came from. Being retired U.S.Army (read that as broke) long distance isn't an option here ... anyone else want to take on the task of figuring out where the individual that has done up the web pages got his/her data? I've got three e-mails out to various addresses, one found on a page, one found as tech in the registration, and of course webmaster .. but no response from any of them either. =-=-=-=- Thus far, no takers on making the follow-up phone call, as the thread went way off topic due to someone wanting to know what cheap telephone company I was using that would require me to dial the US Country code of "1" to reach that office. ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dra007 Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 Have been sending to spam[at]UCE.GOV for a while now. Haven't got a Non-delivery message yet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted July 15, 2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 ...Today when I try to add uce[at]ftc.gov as a report recipient, I get back: uce[at]ftc.gov redirects to spam[at]uce.gov uce[at]ftc.gov refuses spamcop reports It worked fine yesterday. Update 4:10 PM EDT: spam[at]uce.gov does work, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 Finally got an answer from the FTC .... (turns out that art101's "add this address" clicks actually were adding to the "problem" <g>) Hi: The reason for the new spam[at]uce.gov address is that the spam stream to the ftc.gov MTAs disrupts and delays regular employee business email, especially when there is some kind of processing disruption. During scheduled or non-scheduled maintenence, all email gets queued up together and it can sometimes take hours to unwind the queue (noting that everything has to be virus scanned). Because regular email is buried in with the spam, it has become an issue. The spam[at]uce.gov address is up and operational. It is exactly the same processing into the spam database as uce[at]ftc.gov. There will be a push to notify the internet world of the changed address before the uce[at]ftc.gov address is retired. Hope this helps, Mike Frank <postmaster at ftc.gov> > > No response from last e-mail. Trying again, with more data. > https://rn.ftc.gov/pls/dod/wsolcq$.sta...Z_ORG_CODE=PU01 > lists the spam[at]UCE.GOV as the address to "forward spam > directly to the Commission" .. but again, no reference as to what > the status is on the previously identified address of uce[at]ftc.gov. > > At issue is that the "old" address appears in so many lists around > the world, but I can find no clue as to the background on the > change to another address, thus making it hard to justify a > heads-up on notifying some of these folks. Now we have added > to the mix of several U.S. agencies setting yet another flag to > reject user requested copies of SpamCop spam complaints/reports > being rejected, and again, can come up with no reason .... the > e-mail address of uce[at]ftc.gov is one of those addresses, though > noting that my own continued spam submittals seem to go through > just fine (i.e., no rejection or bounce condition) > > The original e-mail was also followed up by a phone call, but I > found no helpful information at the office that handles these calls > to the FTC either ... For some of the confusion existing thus far, > I invite you to visit a Topic in one of the SpamCop support > Forums http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1972 > to make it quick, you could jump to one of my posts at > http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...indpost&p=13107 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "WazoO" > To: <xxxx[at]ftc.gov> > Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 11:17 AM > Subject: spam collection e-mail address > > > A considerable amount of traffic has recently > > started in various newsgroups, relating to the > > currently identified e-mail address of > > spam[at]UCE.GOV ... vice the long > > standing uce[at]ftc.gov e-mail address. > > I've looked over many of the FTC > > pages, but I can find no reference to > > explain the change, no data on whether > > the old address is still valid (though > > have yet to receive a bounce) ... > > > > Is there a difference between the handling > > of these two different accounts, something > > different in what should be sent to either > > address, or is it just that the old one is > > now mapped to the new one and may > > yet disappear? > > > > c.w.edwards > > Moderator, SpamCop.net Forums -- Mike Frank - Federal Trade Commission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilgenius Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Here's an idea. How about enlisting the aid of the hacking community to hack into the websites spammers direct you to. Either deface the site, or shut it down completely. The attack on spammers has to be on multiple fronts. First, go after the spammers themselves, then go after the companies that hire the spammers, then go after the ISP's that allow them to operate. If a zero tolerance attitude is used, then maybe we can rid the internet of these vermin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Here's an idea. How about enlisting the aid of the hacking community to hack into the websites spammers direct you to. Either deface the site, or shut it down completely. <snip> 33709[/snapback] ...Welll, for at least two reasons. The less convincing one (IMHO) is that fighting theft (spam) with theft (of spamvertized web sites and the bandwidth required to execute the processing that would deface them or shut them down) is unethical (or is it immoral? I can never keep the two straight). The more convincing argument (IMHO) is that some spamvertized web sites are innocent bystanders (they have nothing to do with the spammers and have not given their permission to the spammer to be included in the spam). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff G. Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 We can't condone fighting abuse with abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 We can't condone fighting abuse with abuse.33726[/snapback] ...Perhaps not qua representatives of SpamCop but as an individual, I fully endorse it, provided only the abusers (and not innocent bystanders) are harmed/inconvenienced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spaceman Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 some spamvertized web sites are innocent bystanders (they have nothing to do with the spammers and have not given their permission to the spammer to be included in the spam). About as innocent as a pawnshop hanging a sign that says "We buy hubcaps and stereos from anybody- No questions asked". They have given permission by the way they do business. Who gives the spammers a specific, identifiable code so that they can be paid for successful spamming? This is the 'point of convergence' when you follow the money. The one place that's unlikely to be forged or zombied. The terms "aiding and abetting" and "accessory before the fact" are used to describe the practices of those who set up and enable other crimes. Shouldn't those who buy the goods have a resonsibility for knowing where they come from? I'm not advocating that this should be justification for hacking into those sites; I don't believe that for a second. It's just that spamvertized sites are not that innocent of responsiblity for the fact that they are spamverized. And also that they hold the key to the identity of the spammers that they pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 There are "spamvertised sites" and there are "spamvertised sites" .... the most recent innocent was a user talking about use of the Nod-32 antivurus tool that stamped his outgoing e-mail with that "certified virus free" crap .... and the "not being a "net genius" playing into should it be reported or not ... other samples are the spans that point to a stock-ticker somewhere else (usually yahoo) .. I've seen Google used as a listing to "the testimonials" ... some of the phishing attempts out there, to include those e-mails from the "SpamCop Adminstration office" ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 <snip> some spamvertized web sites are innocent bystanders (they have nothing to do with the spammers and have not given their permission to the spammer to be included in the spam). 33711[/snapback] <snip> They have given permission by the way they do business. Who gives the spammers a specific, identifiable code so that they can be paid for successful spamming? 33901[/snapback] ...Those aren't the folks to which I was referring. I was referring to web sites that are not paying spammers for including them in their spam but, for example, those the spammers are trying to implicate by including them (and other similar IBs). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lking Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 <snip> I was referring to web sites that are not paying spammers for including them in their spam but, for example, those the spammers are trying to implicate by including them (and other similar IBs). 33949[/snapback] Yet an other testimonial for reviewing the spam reports before hitting "Send Report(s) Now." I don't believe any one here thinks the New York Times should be blocked because a reference was made to a story there. Many of the Pump and Dump spam I get reference the Wall Street Journal articles. Again a quick review, un check the box, and all is well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Yet an other testimonial for reviewing the spam reports before hitting "Send Report(s) Now." I don't believe any one here thinks the New York Times should be blocked because a reference was made to a story there. Many of the Pump and Dump spam I get reference the Wall Street Journal articles. Again a quick review, un check the box, and all is well. 33950[/snapback] A second step to prevent this is marking those pages as IB for those that miss the unchecking for whatever reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbiel Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Yet an other testimonial for reviewing the spam reports before hitting "Send Report(s) Now." I don't believe any one here thinks the New York Times should be blocked because a reference was made to a story there. Many of the Pump and Dump spam I get reference the Wall Street Journal articles. Again a quick review, un check the box, and all is well.33950[/snapback] Remember SpamCop never adds any web site to the blocking list. Only the IP address of the mail server sending or forwarding the spam ends up on the blocking list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.