Spam War Takes Out Blog Services 315
munchola writes "Following on from the story about spammers attacking Blue Security's anti-spam system, CBR is reporting that Six Apart, which runs the popular LiveJournal and TypePad blogging services, has become a collateral victim. Six Apart told its millions of bloggers it had experienced 'intermittent and limited availability for TypePad, LiveJournal, TypeKey, sixapart.com, movabletype.org and movabletype.com', before resolving the issue in the early hours of Wednesday. '[The spammers are] trying to rip apart the internet just to make our community stop fighting back against spam,' Blue Security's chief executive Eran Reshef said, adding that he knows who's behind the attack."
Is Blue Security going public with who's behind it (Score:2)
He should, so we can put on the pressure.
Re:Is Blue Security going public with who's behind (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Is Blue Security going public with who's behind (Score:2)
http://imdb.com/title/tt0072431/ [imdb.com]
Re:Is Blue Security going public with who's behind (Score:2, Funny)
(Because we're really smart)
Re:Is Blue Security going public with who's behind (Score:2)
Fighting abuse with abuse is bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Swamping a spammer is not a good idea, because he can either redirect the attacks to an innocent third party, or simply pointless because they use stolen ressources, like trojaned computers that host illegal sites.
The best way to eradicate spammers would simply be to go after their clients.
Re:Fighting abuse with abuse is bad (Score:5, Interesting)
That hasn't worked yet. If you have some idea how that could be accomplished and effective against spam and spammers, please feel free to elaborate.
Blue security seems to be causing pain to spammers, enough to get a rise out of them at least. Aren't they actually reflecting the spam back to the source? I think that was their tactic.
If they are effective, that's a net positive in the spam fight.
Re:Fighting abuse with abuse is bad (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not so sure - read the last paragraph of the article:
It seems a little...vague.
I'm thinking there's at le
Re:Fighting abuse with abuse is bad (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems blue security has been compromised by the spammers.
I can't see why blue security should be blamed- except for their security problem.
The problem is spam and spammers, and it is ludicrous to think otherwise.
I have been working on the spam problem for >10 years.
The problem is lax ISPs and network operators who don't pay attention to their mail. Who don't jump on the trojaned machines on their network that are causing >90% of the spam problem in the world.
I have had the same trojaned machine sending me the same spam every 15 minutes, from a school district. It took me days to finally get a shitty response out of the network operators there to get that machine shut down until it could be cleaned. They didn't seem concerned at all, it was like I was "bothering them" to ask them to stop that machine from spamming.
I bet it was sending 150,000 messages between the ones I received. Obviously a major problem. They couldn't care less.
Now THEY should have been DOS'd.
Ya know, several years ago I asked one of the principles of Akamai to get involved, to provide some of the bandwidth and hosting in a fault tolerant fashion, which they reportedly are in a unique position to provide on their monitored distributed network. Practically cannot be effectivedly DOS'd. They thought my proposal "interesting" but didn't want to get involved for the good of the internet, because they didn't want to attract attention from the bad guys.
It wasn't 5 or 6 months before they were DOS'd and extorted.
EVERYONE is involved now. We are all being extorted by the spammers. If you cross them they will attack you, even if you just ask them to please stop spamming you.
The only possible answer is responsibility. Networks being responsible for what goes on over their network. Shut down spammers. Don't rent them servers. Don't sell them bandwidth. Jump on problems, even on weekends and holidays, and you have to do it FAST.
Nothing is going to stop spam completely, we can only increase the cost to spammers, and increase the costs for networks to sell to spammers. Make it uneconomical to have spammers as customers.
When the cheapest T-1 a spammer can find is $250,000 a month, spam will stop.
Re:Fighting abuse with abuse is bad (Score:3, Informative)
Then he/she/it sent the people on this resulting list a lot of t
Re:Fighting abuse with abuse is bad (Score:2)
And you didn't redirect the flood to their personal accounts why? Nothing seems to get a problem fixed quite as quickly as putting it back on the people causing it.
Re:Fighting abuse with abuse is bad (Score:2)
I've been running their client for MONTHS now and the most recent upgrade is much improved. It integrates with GMAIL and HotMail to make reporting SPAM quite easy. The result has been my reporting lots more SPAM to the system. It's no wonder to me that they are feeling the heat - my client has been working overtime submitting opt-out requests
Re:Fighting abuse with abuse is bad (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't know why but there seems to be a lot of posts going around pointing at BS as if they're
Re:Fighting abuse with abuse is bad (Score:2)
I'm guessing you are professional managment, yes?
Re:Fighting abuse with abuse is bad (Score:2)
Re:Fighting abuse with abuse is bad (Score:2)
Do you not think that the fact that the spammers are angry enough to try to retaliate gives evidence that they have been hurt, or are at least fearful of being hurt by this method?
Re:Fighting abuse with abuse is bad (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Fighting abuse with abuse is bad (Score:2)
Blue security seems to be causing pain to spammers, enough to get a rise out of them at least. Aren't they actually reflecting the spam back to the source? I think that was their tactic.
That logic is wrong. But in that tradition:
The ememy is increasing it effort and sending more troups to us to fight us, we must be winning!
-- Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf Iraqi Minister of Information. 8)
Re:Fighting abuse with abuse is bad (Score:2)
It hasn't been started yet. There have been no large-scale operations to find those companies/entities who pay the spammers money to send spam. I saw one investigative report in a MSM newspaper that actually tracked some of the spam money. The companies who were purchasing the services of the spammers were not companies you might think would do it. However, beyond that one article, I've never seen anything that goes after those who pay the spammers for their services.
You wan
Re:Fighting abuse with abuse is bad (Score:2)
Re:Fighting abuse with abuse is bad (Score:2)
Re:Fighting abuse with abuse is bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fighting abuse with abuse is bad (Score:2)
Opting out is *NOT* abuse! (Score:5, Insightful)
4 of the 10 major spammers had already excluded the blue security list from their mass mailings, and their problem was solved. But this particular spammer, instead of complying, shut down Blue Security.
Just because Blue Frog causes A SIDE EFFECT of disminishing the bandwidth of the spammer's website, is not Blue Security's fault. (It is our LEGAL RIGHT to request for opt-out, and to keep requesting it UNTIL IT IS FULFILLED).
To say opting out is abuse, is nothing but legitimizing illegal (non CAN-SPAM complying) spam.
Re:Opting out is *NOT* abuse! (Score:2)
Well,I have to disagree there. Anyone with half the technical know-how required to put together something like Blue Frog should have realised the likely effect immediately. Hell, it was only created in the first place because spam is such a huge problem because there's so much of it - it's entire reason for existing is because there's a flood of the stuff! Therefore, there will ne
Best way to eradicate spammers (Score:2)
No, there's a much better way [mosnews.com].
Re:Best way to eradicate spammers (Score:2)
But killing people does not solve crime (which is my reason to be against the death penalty).
To put it in other words, shutting down an abuser does not shut down the system that promotes such abuse. The only way to stop spam is to make it non-profitable for spammers. And this is done by cluttering their sales forms with opt out requests (which is what Blue Frog does).
Of course, if SPAM had been declared illegal in the first place... we wouldn't have to deal with this mess.
Re:Best way to eradicate spammers (Score:3, Informative)
You don't honestly believe that do you?!?!
Most spam (in the true sense of the word) IS ALREADY ILLEGAL in that it is fraud.
Spam doesn't operate in a vacuum. There is profit to the ISP hosting spam sites as well as the email accounts of known spammers. Add to that the security exploited machines and it makes email unusable.
To put it in the words of spamhaus.org:
"Although all networks claim to be anti-
Re:Best way to eradicate spammers (Score:2)
I'm not advocating murder in any way, and honestly I doubt this had anything to do with spam (if you're involved in illegal activity in Russia, you're usually involved with organized crime. Piss them off and these things happen.)
Re:Best way to eradicate spammers (Score:2)
Well, if sending spam results in your immediate and painful death, that sort of influences the risk versus profit equation, now doesn't it?
Sure, people would still do it -- people smuggle drugs in places where that earns you a one-way ticket down a trapdoor followed by an abrupt ending -- but you're naive if you don't think that the threat of punishment is a large disincentive to crime.
I don't go around robbing banks and stealing cars beca
Re:Best way to eradicate spammers (Score:2)
True, but it sure as hell cuts down on the rate of re-offending.
Re:Best way to eradicate spammers (Score:2)
Spam isn't going away until the economics make it no longer profitable. Laws can sometimes affect the economics (opportunity cost of being in jail, etc.,
Going after spam clients (Score:2)
Re:Fighting abuse with abuse is bad (Score:2)
Agreed, it's bad. Also when someone kicks you or hits you or whatever, if you beat him up, that's really bad.
But you know what? It works. And in the end of the way, that's all that matters.
Re:Fighting abuse with abuse is bad (Score:4, Insightful)
War and drama asside: I keep waiting for someone to make this point but I'm not seeing it yet.
Spam is a solicitation to contact the advertised party in the hopes that you will give them money. Otherwise known as an advertisement. THEY CONTACT US. It's called the free market. In turn we all have the right to use the communication path they supply to request that they leave us alone.
Is it illegal to contact some company you see on a billboard or in a TV commercial? What absurdity! What is this world coming to where everyone gets sucked into DDoS drama at every chance? Blue Froggers are just doing business within the realm of the law. No stretching the rules. No sensationalism.
The only reason spammer servers crash is because they aren't prepared and are poorly designed. They have two options:
1. Seriously upgrade their infrastructure to handle whatever degree of responses their advertisements generate & hire more staff to process the hits their ad generates.
=or=
2. Seriously decrease their advertisements to be in line with their capacity to manage their generated trafic.
It's just economics and common sense. This DDoS talk is a waste of time - the Blue Frog client is much nicer to the spammers than they are to us. And this huge amount of anger directed at Blue Frog is proof that it bites into their freedom to be irresponsible.
They can keep their pill pushing sites - I don't care if there are suckers out there dumb enough to give them money. I just want them to stop bothering ME. They will never get one red hot cent from me. They WILL get endless trouble from me as long as they continue to disrespect my privacy.
All the best folks!
B.
Blame fest (Score:5, Insightful)
The spammer also launched a conventional bandwidth-consumption DDoS attack against bluesecurity.com. It was around this time that the company opened its new blog, which meant TypePad got whacked.
This blue security article has been running for a few days now and the site hasn't been responding any time I've tried recently.
Isn't it just another DDOS blame fest when in reality its just the news spreading around the world and all the collective users of all the collective news sites are clicking the links to try to read the story?
A total slashdotting/digging/farking and general newsing all at once.
It was the same when word spread about google going down.
"OMG have you heard, google is dead?"
*CLICK* "Yer, its not working here either" *CLICK* *CLICK* *CLICK*
*CLICK* "Hey, its loaded here." *CLICK* "Oh crap, its broken again now.."
We are all guilty of assisting this DDOS attack. shame on us.
It will ease up once something else comes and takes our attention away from it.
Re:Blame fest (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Blame fest (Score:5, Informative)
" Isn't it just another DDOS blame fest when in reality its just the news spreading around the world and all the collective users of all the collective news sites are clicking the links to try to read the story?"
No. Here's what happened:
Believe me, TypePad gets Farked/Dugg/Slashdotted every day. They can handle the normal traffic spikes. This was deliberate, and it was well documented.
"We are all guilty of assisting this DDOS attack. shame on us."
A drop in the ocean. TypePad can absorb these sorts of things. Make no mistake: TypePad was taken down by a deliberate, coordinated DDOS attack.
Re:Blame fest (Score:2, Insightful)
That would be because SixApart got the registrar/dns host to point bluesecurity.com to localhost (127.0.0.1) so unless you're running a webserver on your own box, you won't get anything.
The main news behind this story isn't that a spammer is attacking SixApart, but that bluesecurity, which claims to be a consumer-friendly anti-spam service, in its time of crisis chose not to just take the hit, but instead shared their misfortune with a huge co
Re:Blame fest (Score:2)
Sure, they make a mistake ONCE, and suddenly they're a bunch of hypocrites. Go ahead, blame the victim.
Let the bloggers blog! Set my people free! (Score:2)
Re:Let the bloggers blog! Set my people free! (Score:2)
Kill the spammers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Kill the spammers (Score:3, Insightful)
I know you were just kidding, but some people aren't
Re:Kill the spammers (Score:2, Funny)
Yes, quitting e-mail is a very realistic solution. And I suppose that if your home phone starts getting flooded by unwanted sales calls you should just stop using the phone?
And if someone starts flooding the emergency services with spam calls?
Basically, your solution to people deliberately abusing an essential service seems to be rolling over and letting them fuck you like a bitch.
I know you wer
Re:Kill the spammers (Score:2)
Re:Kill the spammers (Score:3, Insightful)
I think going after companies and websites advertised in SPAM woudld do more damage. Get a 1 mil dollar fine and they wont be making the same mistake twice.
Taking away the source of funds/content for spammers will at least minimize spam.
Re:Kill the spammers (Score:2)
Aren't there already professional (crime) organizations already set up for hacking and spamming purposes? Yeah; hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.
I think going after companies and websites advertised in SPAM woudld do more damage. Get a 1 mil dollar fine and they wont be making the same mistake twice.
If I made just one PENNY for each spam e-mail I sent out, I'd quit my day job and just be
Re:Kill the spammers (Score:2)
Re:Kill the spammers (Score:2)
Do I want them dead? I can't say. I can say I want them to STOP in whatever form it takes.
Re:Kill the spammers (Score:2)
If that were true, drug running would have stopped LONG ago.
The Mafia? "Man, I could get hurt!"
"I stopped robbing houses after that one guy got shot by the owner. I mean, I thought they'd just accept the inevitable if I waved a gun at them, and now... I'm not so sure. To hell with my heroin addition, I'm gonna go straight before something awful happens to me! Community College, here I come!"
Money does f
Re:Kill the spammers (Score:2)
Should there be fiscal and/or technological repercussions to spamming? Sure. But death seems a little bit ridiculous for an act that, at most, costs someone money.
Re:Kill the spammers (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm certainly not. I want to see them in PMITA prison and destitute, but not dead.
However. According to a report from 2004 [spamfo.co.uk], spammers sent about 12.4 billion messages per day. If it takes one second per email to delete, then that consumes 393 person-years to remove from our collective inboxes. Assuming an average lifespan of 75, that means spammers use the entire
Re:Kill the spammers (Score:2)
Re:Kill the spammers (Score:2)
Russia's Biggest Spammer Brutally Murdered in Apartment [mosnews.com]
Vardan Kushnir, notorious for sending spam to each and every citizen of Russia who appeared to have an e-mail, was found dead in his Moscow apartment on Sunday, Interfax reported Monday. He died after suffering repeated blows to the head.
Different take... (Score:2)
Two birds with one stone? (Score:5, Funny)
I can't see any down side to this, honestly.
Self-hosting (Score:3, Informative)
While Blogger eventually added a captcha to solve the problem (after being non-responsive to support requests), it left a bad taste in my mouth. It was at that point that I decided to go self-hosted. I've never looked back. For the cost of a cheap hosting provider, you can setup a Wordpress installation that looks better, is more feature-rich, and automatically queues suspcious messages rather than allowing them to pass through. So while my site could be DDOSed if it was specifically targetted, it can't be overloaded with spam or used to take down other bloggers.
Re:Self-hosting (Score:2)
Re:Self-hosting (Score:2)
How so? Were you on the same sub-net as SixApart, or did you get explicity targetted?
RFC 1087 needs to be given teeth.
RFC 1087 is an antique, a response to the November 1988 attack of the Morris Worm. The federal government no longer owns and operates the Internet, and thus doesn't have the rights to prosecute under destruction of private pr
Re:Self-hosting (Score:2)
You got seven million hits on a single line of text? How did you know that you received 7 million page loads? (Blogger doesn't provide statistics, the last I knew.)
Granted, if you actually got 7 million hits, the lousy templates of Blogger would have cost you about 34K * 7,000,000 = 226GBs for that single line of text. That's still well below what a service like Lunarpages includes in its b [lunarpages.com]
Re:Self-hosting (Score:2)
Ah, I see. Page-wise, that would have hurt a lot more. Not critically, mind you, but a lot more. I imagine that it's nice to be rid of that overweight Blogger page.
While I am sure "bandwidth-wise" I would have been fine (except for the actual video which used up over a petabyte of BW), would their basic account have been able to handle 1m PV's a da
Re:Self-hosting (Score:2)
Shifting attack (Score:2, Interesting)
"He's trying to rip apart the internet just to make our community stop fighting back against spam," Blue Security's chief executive Eran Reshef said of the spammer he believes launched the attack.
LiveJournal and TypePad found themselves suffering the brunt of the attack when Blue, which says it has been targeted by a "top four" Russian spammer, redirected the front page of its website to a blog hosted at TypePad's data center.
Reshef said Blue replaced the front page of its site with the TypePad blo
Re:Shifting attack (Score:5, Informative)
Also, the spam reports that are sent out are sent from a proxy type email address. My normal address wouldn't show up, but username@reports.bluesecurity.com is where it would come from.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with sending 1 unsubscribe request per piece of spam I get. BlueSecurity has just automated this method so I don't have to take the time, and they also handle escalation to the proper authorities if the situation isn't resolved.
If the spammer perceives getting 1 unsubscribe request per spam he sends a DDOS attack then I would think the best course of action would be not to send to those people. Heck, we are the ones who wouldn't buy anything from them anyway.
Also, based on what I have read in the blog itself (when it was still accessible) it was a user in the comments that suggested redirecting the site and error pages to the blog so users would at least have some clue what was going on. It's likely they took the advice without contemplating the potential outcome.
Re:Shifting attack (Score:4, Insightful)
Everyone keep's knocking blue... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, do you have any better suggestions, if not then I kindly ask you to ommit your views until you can add something to the cause.
Re:Everyone keep's knocking blue... (Score:2)
Re:Everyone keep's knocking blue... (Score:2)
It can if it wants.
The gov't had Junk Faxers shut down before the Bush Administration opened the floodgates for them again this year.
Big fines with an active vigilante^H^H reward system (private lawyers suing junk faxers) will defeat spam.
Re:Everyone keep's knocking blue... (Score:3, Insightful)
OK. Here's one. Summary execution for spammers and their families. It would solve the problem more effectively than anything else we've got.
You don't have any better suggestions? Then don't you dare criticize this one!
Sorry for the Modest Proposal (I do not advocate killing people over spam!), but the point I'm trying to make is: it's entirely legitimate to criticize an idea
Just post these guys' addresses and photos... (Score:2)
For those of you Blue Frog users... (Score:3, Interesting)
The next step is automating the process, perhaps making a new version of Blue Frog that doesn't rely on a centralized server. Do that, and we'll regain our mailboxes.
Let's not forget guys... (Score:2)
That most DDOS attacks right now are done using botnets. If we should blame someone (besides our mediocre congress), it's Microsoft for having such a weak security in their desktop OS. And for not updating pirated copies [slashdot.org], which are used as botnets too!
Re:Let's not forget guys... (Score:2)
Quite frankly, the only real security laxes that Microsoft has had over the last few years (after the OE preview patch, and limiting ActiveX componenets), were the Sasser/Blaster type things, I blame the IT people who ASKED for those services (the ability to run code remotely) to be included.
What people don't realize, is that once you run a malicious program on your computer, it doesn't matter what OS you're using. It can get its grips and do what it wants into anyth
Breaking point (Score:3, Insightful)
Go open source (Score:2, Interesting)
Take them out (Score:2, Insightful)
And you know mafia isn't involved? (Score:2)
500 000 is nothing (Score:2)
I've not heard of BlueSecurity before, but after those stories, I'm signing up with them. I urge anyone who wants to help fight against spam and vandalism on the Internet do the same.
After all, when noone can take care of a problem for you, it's time to step up and solve it yourself.
Stop Being Cute About This (Score:2)
Stop being cute about this and just tell us who. Information in power, and you're only facilitating this person's ability to continue to hide until you unmask him/them.
Re:Stop Being Cute About This (Score:2)
1) it is a top 4 spammer who speaks Russian.
2) in the top 4 spammers are two Russians and one Ukranian
3) the top two spammers have decided to avoid bluehost customers
Assuming Ukranian guy speaks Russian, if the bottom 2 of the top 4 include only one Russian speaker, then he's your guy. At worst, you narrow it down to two people.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:SixApart should sue them (Score:2)
Blue Security are idiots (Score:2, Insightful)
First, these idiots set up an "anti-spam" service whose response to abuse is...abuse.
Second, they use a fraudulent corporate name. (Use Google and search Usenet.)
Third, they locate themselves on a network also happens to house one of the scummiest spammers on the planet.
Fourth, they decide to redirect an incoming attack at an innocent third party.
The only surprising thing is how many morons have actually DEFENDED these idiots.
Recommendations:
1. Permanently blacklist thei
Tucows services still recovering from DDoS (Score:3, Informative)
Ha! All of Tucows services, including the managed dns and email defense services were completely down most of yesterday. The managed DNS service is still impaired until the new IPs of ns1.mdnsservice.com and ns2.mdnsservice.com propagate (they just this morning changed the TTL to 1200 secs %-).
status.tucows.com
Managed DNS Service Degraded Performance - restore time is currently unknown Beginning at approximately noon Wednesday May 3rd the Tucows network was under a severe DDOS attack. To stop the attack, we have changed the IP addresses of the servers. If you are using IP addresses in order to connect to MDNS, you will have to update your records. Also, any nameserver with a long TTL should be updated in order to use the new info. Next Update Time:15:20 UTC, 04 May 2006",/i>
To Stop Spam (Score:2, Insightful)
People could stop clicking, but that is unlikely to happen. Especially in America, people are always looking for the easier path: be it cheaper medication, promises of enhanced "performance," tales of rapid weight loss while sitting on your couch, or the constant get-rich-quick scheme.
If people actually thought... yes, used higher brain functions... they m
Just not trying hard enough (Score:2, Funny)
Why not... (Score:2, Insightful)
redirct the domain name to 127.0.0.1(taking up to 24-48 hours to update) as one of the other posters posted...
Why I ask is because where I work we had a similar problem and sence I maintain our web server we had no choice but to unpluge the network cable. Waited 5 minutes and pluged it back in and vwala! no more DOS.
My best guess was that as soon as the DOS'er saw that our site was "down" they/it thought that there task was completed.
It is almost( but not quite the
BlueSecurity on holiday? Unacceptable (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a 24/7 business. A serious online service vendor can't have company holidays. Least of all in the security business.
Blue Security's Blog (Score:2)
Netcraft Article on DDoS [netcraft.com]
My original article on the attack 4/1/06 [blogspot.com]
The DDoS started with invalid PHP requests. I think the spammer is using a combination of methods to disable Blue Security now, but that's just an assumption. The question is, how long are spammers going to focus their efforts on the counter attack? Using their resources to attack Blue Security means less resources to send profitable spam. The spammer wants me to unregister from Blue Security's site, but at the same
awright ... fess up... (Score:3, Funny)
So which of you scumbags is responsible for this.
Re:Guilty of what? (Score:3, Informative)
If I were SixApart, I'd sue the fuck out of Blue Security for deliberately DDOSing them.
Re:Guilty of what? (Score:2)
They are not sending out the offending packets, the spammer is.
Is it unethical to redirect the DDoS you are getting hit with? Yep, I'd say so if you do it intentionally.
Is it illegal? Nope, not in any sense of the word. The people perpetrating the crime are the spammers, and they are the ones performing the illegal act.
It'
Re:Guilty of what? (Score:3, Funny)
Redirecting a URL is not vandalism.
Re:Guilty of what? (Score:2)
On the other hand, your neighbour could almost certainly sue you for damages - look at OJ, acquitted
Re:Guilty of what? (Score:3, Interesting)
The best I've got is running a business out of your home that does tit for tat retaliation on organized crime businesses. They rough up one of your boys you rough up one of theirs. They get upset so they burn your house to teh ground. You escape and leave a note on the burnt out ashes that you'll be staying at the Middlebury Hotel in case your clients need to get a hold of you. The mobsters see the note and procede to burn the hotel to the ground as well.
Re:Guilty of what? (Score:4, Funny)
the dude abides (Score:2)
Spam SHOULD BE a crime (Score:2)
"Merely" sending unsolicited bulk eMail is still not (yet) a crime in too many jurisdictions.
Which is incomprehensible and irresponsibly lenient for the law, given that spam is so obviously annoying (and costing so much of everyone else's time and money) that the burden of proof for using only a legitimate opt-in list, as well as for providing ful
Re:Backbone Subversion (Score:3, Funny)