BlueSecurity Database Compromised? 375
Stray1 writes ""You are recieving this email because you are a member of BlueSecurity...." An email from unknown detractors has taken the Bluesecurity anti spam lists and decided to take matters into their own hands. I recieved this Email from an anonymous, and garbled host, which went on to say in not so fantastic english that I, as a Blusecurity member, would recieve this and many more (about 20 -30) spam messages a day until I left the blue security community. Blue Security, (www.bluesecurity.com)a website and community designed to lessen your Spam Email, is down for the moment. Is this what we have come to? Spam,(erm 'high volume email') companys holding your address hostage until you comply? "...We mightve had your email addresses before in our lists, but now, we are targetting YOU, because YOU are a bluesecurity user". I have to say, up until this point, my spam was down by about 70% to 80%."
Eye for an Eye? (Score:2, Insightful)
And by flood I taeke it you mean spam
When will the world learn, violence begets violence and spam begets spam. Lets find a real solution to the problem rahter then a vigalante justice.
I'd call the bluff (Score:5, Insightful)
A head for an eye? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Eye for an Eye? (Score:4, Insightful)
'Vigilante' would imply something illegal is going on. This is market forces at work - more effective, generally, than government intervention.
Don't Back Down (Score:3, Insightful)
All the best with it.
Re:So, is the database compromised? (Score:3, Insightful)
So what do we do -- surrender, because some spammer compromises this one system? Blue Frog has its own problems, but their idea is sound, if a bit "above the law." Let Blue Frog users forward the emails to them and let the company go after the spammers (aren't they violating CAN-SPAM or the law against harrassing emails?).
Look, Wyatt Earp was a lawman looking to see justice done and occassionally he had to step outside the law. Call it vigilantism if you like, but the fact is, these spammers have been operating under the assumption that they are untouchable, and can do this all day long with no repercussions. It's time for users around the globe to go on the offensive, give them a taste fo their own medicine. Shut down their ISPs if they won't stop the spam. Jam up their systems. Let them know we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore. The court system can rule against them, but so many of them are overseas that I seriously doubt they can be touched. So hit 'em where it hurts, right in the servers.
Re:Email I Received (Score:2, Insightful)
The REST of the story ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Contrary to what the author wrote, there's closer to 475,000 members, not just a few 10's of thousands, enough that several major spammers have already agreed to not spam members due to the huge financial hits they were taking with the bluefrog choking off their websites.
What a joke, what dumbass would really believe that the spammers will not spam you if you leave blue security? Who here will admit to believing the criminals?
Re:Eye for an Eye? (Score:3, Insightful)
Naaah, let's just spam the bastards 'till they're blue. If I got a blackmail message like that, I'd change my e-mail (I know it'as not easy but it isn't THAT hard too) and setup a friggin server cluster to spam the spammers.
It's the war against spam people, if you're not with us... you're funding spam activities, there we go.
Re:What must be done (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're confused, read the article again; it's mentioned.
Thanks Tips, but all four links in the article seem to be unreachable.
Blue security must be working (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Eye for an Eye? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is 'a community action to produce a market incentive', which is wholly different from 'vigilantism', at least in a literal sense.
Sure, sure, it looks like we're locked in this huge digital superhero battle between the evil spammers and the innocent citizenry, but face it: We're making an attempt to prevent high-volume e-mail to our e-mail addresses from being profitable, and that is all. We are consciously generating market pressure to achieve a goal, and we are doing it in an unorthodox, but morally and legally clean way.
A segment of the population has said, 'High-volume e-mail is annoying enough to be a breach of the peace, as far as I'm concerned. I want none of it, and I will make an effort to prevent my mailbox from recieving them, by filter and by incentive."
Your use of the term 'vigilante tactics' is an obvious attempt to cast a dim light on the activities of the Blue Security community. It brings a baseless accusation to mind - and this being slashdot, I'm inclined to make it - but I think I'll leave the obvious to the outside observer.
Frelling trolls.
Re:Eye for an Eye? (Score:1, Insightful)
I didn't stop dealing heroin until I was 27.
I did start carring a gun.
Violence alwasy begets violence. There is no questions about that. The only way violence ever stops future violence is if one party is killed.
Re:What must be done (Score:3, Insightful)
Problem is, that to waste their time, you have to waste your time. I sometimes do respond to junk (paper) mail by sending random junk in the envelope. Sometimes I actually write a letter demanding they remove me from their lists. No matter what I do, it doesn't end. Capital One still sends me junk mail despite multiple letters between us -- me demanding them to stop, them reassuring me they will honor my request. Junk mail is even worse because it is more anonymous -- it is easy to forge headers and mask where a mail truly came from. Yes, there are ways to track it down, but it isn't always easy. Filling out information on a web site in the email doesn't do much, since odds are it doesn't go to the same person. Even then, it takes time to screw with the spammers, electronic or paper, and I don't want to waste my time.
Sometimes I do get bored and do screw with them. Such as using my brand new photo printer to print stuff and put it in those return envelopes. After visiting certain not-work-safe sites for photos.
Re:Eye for an Eye? (Score:3, Insightful)
I was both addict and dealer back in my late teens. I got out of there damned quick when I saw how dangerous it was (got clipped in the ear during a soured deal - damned lucky I got out alive).
You say you continued to work in an extremely dangerous field for ten years AFTER the world suggested to you that it might be a bad occupation for you, yet you still put that statement out as if it's supposed to validate your little nugget of cliched wisdom.
Seriously, nobody likes violence, but like anything it's a tool, and its use is only as evil as its weilder (shoot a lunatic who has a knife to your wife's throat: good or evil?)
Re:Sent abuse report (Score:2, Insightful)
Well if it's in the header then that must be where it came from. Congratulations on your superlative detective work.
I'm sure that the abuse admin at calpoly.edu will also soon be writing to you to let you know how much he appreciates your skills.
Re:Eye for an Eye? (Score:2, Insightful)
I didn't stop dealing heroin until I was 27.
I did start carring a gun.
The fact that you were too stupid to get out does not mean that violence is never a way to stop other violence.
Neville Chamberlain, is that you? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice FUD but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Eye for an Eye? (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly. so what your example demonstrates is that ineffective violence begets more violence. Had that guy been a better shot, it would have stopped.
Translated to this context, if the BlueSecurity effect is potent enough, it could have a subsantial effect. If it's not, it'll just spark more back-and-forth.
Re:Eye for an Eye? (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe that some 2000 years ago they nailed someone to a cross who had pretty similar ideas.. Seems he has a huge following outside the hippie scene also. Ok, I have to say that he looked a bit like a hippie.
Learn the difference between initiating force and resisting it. One is perfectly moral and one isn't. Resisting violence often reduces future violence instead of 'begating violence.' Since you lack clue I'll state the obvious, the violent only attack those who they believe to be weaker. (unless they are truly insane, then all bets are off)
Well considered and restrained violence can in specific cases work as a defense, and can even be the only defense, yes. That in no way means that violence is the only way to respond to violence or will solve it most of the times.
The problem is that you are wrong about whom get attacked by 'the violent'. They attack those whome are easiest to intimidate, regardless of actual strength. (which is one reason why terrorism is such an effective offensive strategy against the USA btw)
Re:Eye for an Eye? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Eye for an Eye? (Score:3, Insightful)
So what's stopping the spammer from washing his list, and then comparing the resulting list with his pre-wash backup? Seems like it would still give him a list of addresses to target, even if the encryption was watertight. Doesn't even need any hacking; just a diff program.
Re:What must be done (Score:2, Insightful)
We need an automated descentralized P2P network to attack the spammers and the spam-friendly ISPs.
It takes me less than 5 minutes to forward the 5000-7000 emails in my catchall account each day. I use Thunderbird with the Blue Frog plugin, and forward about 400 messages at a time - I could do it all in a minute if I could attach all the messages at once but that ends up to be too large a message...
Doing it manually would take *far* longer - I've enough time sinks as it is!
According to my Blue Security statistics, my Blue Frog has sent 11,152 "opt-out" requests in the past 7 days. (which also points out that every spam doesn't generate an opt-out) Blue Security's idea is to be enough of a thorn that it's easier to not send to the Blue Frog list than to fight it. (one of the spammer tools has recently added a "clean emails of Blue Security registered names" button - making it trivially easy to remove the registered names. This implies that Blue Security is having an effect.
Right now there are 471,000 names in the list - surely not all are really active, and not all are sending opt-out messages, but it seems spammers are sitting up and noticing now. According to Blue Security's blog, in the past month several spammers have negotiated with them and agreed to clean their lists. If I remember right they generate something like 8% or so of spam volume. Not a *lot* but I'd expect more in the coming months. Spammers are in it to make money - once they get over the initial irritation, it'll just be easier to clean their lists than to try to fight back. Which also makes sense - the list is people who won't buy from them in the first place, so in the end it's a waste of time to send spam to them.
In my opinion (everyone's got em!
- Al Weiner -