Spam Turns 100, By One Reckoning 366
mkavanagh2 writes "Spam is 100 years old today! But, surprisingly, the first spam wasn't sent via e-mail. In fact, 100 years ago, Cunard sent out telegrams to selected (rich) members of the British social elite, advertising tickets on a new liner, and becoming the first spammer. Let us all take out a moment to consider how to best 'repay' the spammers who followed for the 100 years of 'joy' they have given us. ;)"
Cheap fun (Score:5, Insightful)
Cheers,
Erick
Re:Cheap fun (Score:5, Insightful)
there is no reason why spam cannot be defeated. in principle it's one of the easiest problems. much easier than hunger or aids. the problem is just that lots of people in charge won't get off their arse and design a new protocol.
maybe because there's no money in it. pharmaceutical companies hate cures, they much prefer treatments. you only sell a cure once, but treatments last a lifetime.
Re:Cheap fun (Score:5, Insightful)
Spam is not a technological problem, it's a social problem. Find me a widespread social problem that was easy to fix and I'll show you a magical fantasy land with unicorns and easy living.
Re:Cheap fun (Score:2)
if you mean that some people are twats, sure that will always be true.
but make a protocol that doesn't allow anonymous sending of mail and you defeat spam.
Re:Cheap fun (Score:3, Insightful)
Dur, turning off email defeats spam. That doesn't make it a good solution. Forcing people to indentify themselves isn't going to halt spam. It doesn't stop junkmail in your USPS mailbox, does it? It never kept phone solicitors from calling you, did it?
Re:Cheap fun (Score:5, Interesting)
Most spam today comes from zombie PCs, not from giant spam servers. Spammers have hackers infest thousands of PCs with worms, and use those to spew forth their vendors' get rich quick schemes.
OK, you made spam traceable. So now what? Are the feds going to bust in on Aunt Millie just because she didn't install Service Pack 2, hot fix KB123456789, and so allowed spammers to use her name to send their crap?
It might mean Comcast shuts down Aunt Millie's PC from sending email. Or not -- maybe the zombie operator uses Aunt Millie's PC to generate a new Hotmail or gmail account, and sends forth the bilge from there? Extra steps that get Aunt Millie in hotter water, but do nothing to the spammers or their hacking minions.
Technological answers only stop them one zombie at a time. Sure, you can disinfect Aunt Millie's box, but by the time it's patched, both Uncle Fred and Grandma Anna's PCs have been wormed. Spam laws be damned, you're not going to be a popular government for jailing Millie, Fred and Anna for what amounts to a "failure to understand and apply Windows XP Service Pack 2's cumulative security patch for the week ending 9/18."
It's like any other crypto or security problem. Security is a perimeter defense, and it will always be attacked at the weakest point. Cryptologically hardened email will simply mean we spend more CPU cycles verifying that this spam did indeed come from Aunt Millie. ( And, the converse should indicate that the spammers have a weak point too -- I believe it's somewhere south of their pelvises, and north of their thighs. Apply the appropriate amount of pressure and see how much spam shows up tomorrow ... :-)
Re:Cheap fun (Score:5, Insightful)
*i.e. not a whitelist, because then legitimate but not-yet-on-your-whitelist people can't contact you
Re:Cheap fun (Score:3, Insightful)
imagine something where you need to set up an account (more like a bank account in a well-regulated country than a simple fill in this web form thing). then every mail is authenticated like a bank transfer.
then imagine spam being more like credit card fraud - sure it happens sometimes, but isn't the norm like spam is now. actually spam is about 10 times* more the norm than legitimate mail at the moment.
*or some other ridiculous number.
Re:Cheap fun (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cheap fun (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cheap fun (Score:5, Interesting)
Mostly, the idiots are the vendors who hire the spammers. They buy the spamming service for $60.00 for 10000 emails. The spammers invest $200 in "fake" purchases from the vendor. The vendor is so excited he forks over $1000 for 200,000 emails. The spammer sends them out, and pockets the $860, not caring if the vendor makes another sale or not. If he thinks the fish is really gullible, he might string him along with another investment of $100-200, in hopes of landing another $2000 or so.
Spammers are thieves, they lie, cheat and hack their way into our inboxes. What makes you think they treat their paying customers any better?
Re:Cheap fun (Score:3, Interesting)
I am affraid I am a Mac user, so I will take a gmail invite instead of DNF. The stick is optional.
Re:Cheap fun (Score:3, Insightful)
It adds CPU and bandwidth overhead and if everybody and their mother has a unique identifier system (even with a 'little-letters-on-a-blurry background' system, which would cut peole who go just poll, download and read their email offline off or require HTML email) in place, spammers would just focus on defeating that.
Plus, c/r systems don't really work, unless they're properly
Re:Cheap fun (Score:3, Interesting)
That's why I wrote 'does recognize my address as whitelisted'. A lot of people have multiple email accounts. I might respond to an email sent to one of my personal accounts from the office or using one of my role accounts (I don't always change the headers or ssh into my box to send a two line reply). I also often check my emails on the go (using my PDA & WiFi/cell phone) but usually wait 'til I can get my hands on a normal keyboard to reply.
Re:Cryptographically signed messages (Score:3, Informative)
I guess some people filter on the presence of a signature.
Now you have to filter on it's validity as well. Bit of a problem when strangers mail you...
Re:Cheap fun (Score:4, Funny)
( ) technical ( ) legislative (X) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(X) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
(X) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
(X) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
(X) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
Re:Cheap fun (Score:2)
As more and more users lose their bank accounts, install viruses which hose their PC's and generally realise that the shit they get on email is pure shit, then they will start ignoring it.
The more its ignored, the less effective it'll become.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cheap fun (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone has the right to run their own SMTP server.
Following from this, everyone would be able to send email.
Following this, everyone would be able to send spam.
How do you stop the spam, without removing something you might argue is a right? You stop peoples ability to run SMTP servers, then you stop some people from using the email of their choice. Slashdotters, how many of you HAVE your own SMTP servers? I'm pretty sure a lot of you do.
Also, remember
Re:Cheap fun (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with this. However, before someone tries to use this to attack dialup/dynamic blocklists, allow me to correct one small error: "Everyone has the right to run their own SMTP server provided they PAY for it." Most ISPs have business accounts that allow you to run a server, whereas home accounts generally (not always; Sprint DSL is an exception I'm familiar with) forbid running servers. Yes, you generally have to pay more for a business account, bu
Re:Cheap fun (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you also think funeral parlors are happy when people die? I rather suspect every non-nutcase company would gladly disolve if that's the price of curing AIDS. You are talking about ethics of software companies, but humans dying because their body rots out is a bit more important than the format of your word processor files.
Ah, the mandatory crackpot conspiracy theory, eh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Guess what? If such wonder drugs ever existed, the soviets (and the whole soviet block) didn't use them either. Wonder why. Maybe because such wonder drugs only ever existed in crackpot conspiracy theories, but never In Real Life?
And don't tell me it was also the "evil" westen pharma corporations who were stopping the Soviets from using their own medicine. (I don't remember the West stoping the Soviets from building nukes or breeding hot strains of smallpox, for example.)
I'll tell you something funny: the whole Eastern European block had a very liberal policy when it came to antibiotics. And plenty of corruption. One way or the other, you could get pretty much any medicine you bloody pleased, whether you actually needed it or not. (Or whether it could even work at all for your disease or not.) Kids were routinely stuffed full of antibiotics and sulphamids at the slightest sign of a cold.
Yet noone ever got such a miracle cure. Even there, when you did get prescribed medicine, it was 3-4 times a day, for a week or more. Just like in the West. Go figure.
And if you needed an operation, they didn't just sprinkle some magic potion. They used sterilized equipment and aseptic rooms, just like in the West. Go figure.
So please spare me the bullshit conspiracy theories.
There is no magic wand that you can just wave and make the illness go away. There never was, never will be. Not on the Western side, not on the Soviet side, and not in China either.
And if there was one, those same pharma companies could patent it and have a monopoly on magic wands for 20 years straight. The one who had a magic wand that cures, say, diabetes, could sell it for a fortune per milligram, and make one helluva lot more profit from that than from being the 100'th guy selling cheap generic insulin.
Plus if there was one, what do you thing would happen the first time a pharma executive, or doctor or pharmacist got a fatal disease? Do you expect me to believe they'd just patiently await their own death, rather than threaten their profits? Better yet, that millions of doctors and pharmacists _all_ keep the secret rather than save their own lives or the lives of their children.
Dude, there is no amount of money in the world that could buy that.
And let me tell you why it's 3 times a day (Score:3, Informative)
Hence most of the medicine is actually mildly toxic. Almost all of it, in high enough concentrations, can cause severe damage to the liver, kidneys, and/or other body parts.
So the trick to treating a disease, is to maintain a concentration just high enough to s
Re:Cheap fun (Score:3, Insightful)
GP is asking if the design of creating a lot of pills to be taken over a period of time is necessary in as many cases as it is used. (That's assuming I understood him correctly which is also not guaranteed.) If more antibiotics were designed to be
Inflation (Score:5, Funny)
Don't believe me? Check my references.
Re:Inflation (Score:2)
What a Cunard (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What a Cunard (Score:3, Funny)
Woman 1: My husband's a ship's captain, he works for Cunard. Woman 2: Well my husbands a postman, and he works pretty hard too!
Are Caveman's drawings spam? (Score:5, Informative)
I can't see anything about Cunard from the submitter's link.
Well, not nitpicking (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouldn't that be "But, unsurprisingly, the first spam wasn't sent via e-mail".
It would be really a surprise if they sent spam by email 100 years ago. Don't you think?!
Re:Well, not nitpicking (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember:
Re:Well, not nitpicking (Score:2)
It could be considered electric mail but not electronic mail.
Re:Well, not nitpicking (Score:2, Insightful)
- Exercise the First Admendment: Post with the Karma Bonus
The First Admendment is to be excercised; merely listening to every fool exercising her First Admendment right doesn't lend support to freedom of speech.Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmmm. (Score:5, Funny)
I have the kind of love for spammers that makes me want to light them on fire and throw them down a flight of stairs. That's love baby.
Re:Hmmmm. (Score:2)
I want to eat them.
Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Spaaaaaaam! Spammity Spaaaam!
Re:Hmmmm. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hmmmm. (Score:3, Funny)
Just one flight of stairs???
That's a little generous, don't you think? I'd throw the bastards down the stairwell all the way down the Sears Tower! Of course, that's after I gouge out their eyes and shove their computers up their asses. Okay, getting a little worked up now, better quit.
Spam - More than a nuisance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Spam - More than a nuisance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Spam - More than a nuisance (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Spam - More than a nuisance (Score:3, Informative)
Last I checked, the majority of all Usenet traffic is spam.
Re:Spam - More than a nuisance (Score:2)
I probably use more bandwith checking CNN first thing in the morning than is used for spam sent to me (and I get 20-25 pieces/day).
As long as you don't keep storing it on disk, it is just a nuisance.
Re:Spam - More than a nuisance (Score:2)
Though I wouldn't classify popups and flash banners as spam. They pay the website to have their ads displayed (unless they are part of an adware program, but thats another story). Thus I have trouble seeing them take down the net as the hosts can regulate them. They thus cannot take up more bandwidth than the hosts allow the
Where there's any universal medium, there's ads (Score:5, Insightful)
- An open network, where anybody can send to anybody... and that means you can get messages from people you never heard of, for better or worse. Lowlife types are allowed to thrive and spam away.
- A closed network where in order to stay in the club, you've gotta play by the rules. Lowlifes are bounced out on their first offenses. This keeps the trouble away, but it also limits the number of people who can reach you over that channel.
Re:Where there's any universal medium, there's ads (Score:5, Funny)
I guess that it's the former - as I'm still able to post here.
Re:Where there's any universal medium, there's ads (Score:2)
I consider the telephone an open network.
At any given time anyone can contact anybody.
But that's still able to be regulated.
um..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:um..... (Score:2)
Well, there ya go. I used to think that spam was solely tied to Usenet, until Web newbies hijacked the term. Proabably the same gang that ruined the word "hacker", too.
Re:um..... (Score:2)
Time to get tough (Score:3, Insightful)
Charge them, arrest them.
This is a good start [slashdot.org]
Of course this was not just spammers but they are all as bad as each other if you ask me.
Re:Time to get tough (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, and this [trilobite.org] will finish them off. I mean, we need to get tough, after all.
how to return the love (Score:2, Funny)
Re:how to REALLY return the love (Score:2, Funny)
Re:how to REALLY return the love (Score:3, Funny)
So their punishment would include 42 meters of penis enlargement theropy, several hundered skanky Russian mail order brides and a heavy overdose of viagra and vicadin? Interesting punishment ;)
Define "spam" (Score:5, Informative)
Spam: Unsolicited "junk" e-mail sent to large numbers of people to promote products or services.
Note the e- in front of "mail" in the defintion. If it ain't e-mail, then it's just plain old junk mail.
Re:Define "spam" (Score:2)
Re:Define "spam" (Score:2)
So by the contemporary definition, a telegram is not an 'email', but by the Clinton-ish definition, is sure seems to fit! Granted, it was generally printed on a piece of paper and hand delivered, but that is still done today with email ('here's the letter from Billy, grandma.')!
Cunard sending spam? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cunard sending spam? (Score:3, Interesting)
The cost of a service (or lack there of) doesn't/shou
My cupboard... (Score:5, Funny)
And "Spam" is only 67... (Score:2)
Leaving me wondering: what did they call it before 1937?
Well, to put a finer point on it... (Score:4, Interesting)
There are signs that this is changing however, with fewer mailservers handling e-mail, better bandwidth, and larger hard disk sizes it is quite likely that we are approaching a point at which spam begins to achieve parity with junkmail in terms of that sender/receiver cost relationship. At which point it may be wise to at least consider including spam as a marketing resource alongside more conventional services.
Junkmail keeps the cost of stamps low and helps subsidize other uses of the postal system. Perhaps if the same occurs with spam it won't be such an ugly concept?
Re:Well, to put a finer point on it... (Score:2)
Don't go spidering my email address and sending me everything you can, because you can. And, don't purposely alter your message in an attempt to get past my filters. If my filter gets it, then I didn't want to read it anyways. If it doesn't, do you really think I'm actually going to read your mail? (for marketing idiots: no)
Other advertising forms indirectly pay me by subsidizing what I'm doing. Email (and now voicemai
First unwanted advertisements (Score:5, Funny)
Re:First unwanted advertisements (Score:2, Funny)
Re:First unwanted advertisements (Score:5, Funny)
A Free Ticket (Score:2)
Give them a free ticket on Cunard's most famous ship -- The Titanic. (No lifeboat, of course, just like for most of it's passengers). Of course, they'd have to swim to the deck themselves....
Re:A Free Ticket (Score:2)
Cunard bought White Star line some 18-odd years later when, funnily enough, White Star Line got in a spot of financial bother.
What's really interesting is how White Star Line got into their financial trouble. Amongst other things, the US government dramatically reduced the number of immigrants they would allow into the country (read: the number of Green Cards they were handing out!), and since transporting immigrants to the USA
Practical uses for spammers (Score:5, Funny)
2) Cost effective replacements for crash test dummies.
3) Cost effective replacements for animals in cosmetic testing.
4) Cost effective replacement for ballistics gel.
Repay? Most definitely! (Score:3, Funny)
Nice Troll. (Score:2)
Yea, sure... (Score:5, Funny)
For all we know, illicit advertising could have started even back in as far as the caveman days...
There was once a caveman named Ug who would hurl rocks from far away at unsuspecting dwellers. Each rock would have a pictures etched into it depicting a caveman holding a shield to protect himself from flying rocks. One day, Ug threw a rock from far away at another caveman, Og, with the usual picture etched into the rock. Hit and startled by the incomming rock, Og picked it up, gazed at the picture, scratched his head, and looked at Ug. Ug threw another rock, which this time hit Og right on the head. Angry, Og threw the rock back at Ug, only to see Ug hold up a shield and deflect the rock.
Og was very impressed. He and his tribe of other cavemen then walked over to Ug. Ug held up a picture showing himself handing another caveman the shield, and the other caveman handing him lots of furs. Og smiled, took the shield, and hit Ug over the head with his club, killing him. So Og and his tribe feasted on Ug, striking fear into the hearts of marketers who were not strong enough to defend themselves against a bunch of angry cavemen. Such a utopia prospered for generations, until the invention of the telephone.
spam older than Spam (Score:2, Informative)
100 years ago they probably called it Invasive Nuisance®.
Tracking down a spammer ... (Score:2)
[The originator of the free iPod scams]
I was surprised [sarcasm] to see that he had written a piece on the internet on how the CAN SPAM ACT would bring a renaissance in email marketing.
This 100 years of SPAM reminded me of this because this "essay" describes how email marketing has now reached the protections that attorneys have desired for decades.
I plan to do a story about this guy and his business [freeslide,producttestpanel, subscriberbase, cons
Simpsons solution for spammers (Score:2, Interesting)
Spam IS NOT just email (Score:5, Informative)
From Wikipidia: "In this article and those related, the term spamming is used broadly to refer to all of these behaviors, regardless of medium and commercial intent."
Notice the regardless of medium.Personally, I consider spam to be the automatic supply of unwanted information. For that reason I wouldn't consider mailing lists and telemarketers as spammers. You signed up for the mailing list and telemarketing is not an automatic process. Besides, telemarketing provides (provided) a lot of people with jobs (even if bad jobs, some people need the money more than the good job).
For instance: You can be spammed with junk mail. A channel can be spammed by bots. You can be spammed with emails. You can't be spammed over the phone unless a recording is calling you. You can be spammed in the grocery store (oh wait, that's different...)
Of course, this is just my personal way of looking at it, so what do I know?I can hear it on the tele (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I can hear it on the tele (Score:3, Funny)
1) The parent was moderated as funny without the moderator knowing what the text said.
2) The moderator knew what the text said.
3) I took the time to decode the text.
Origin of spam (not SPAM) (Score:2, Informative)
This link gives Hormel's position on the use of the term "spam" and the history behind it.
Nice job hammering Wikipedia for no reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Where's TFA? (Score:5, Interesting)
Wasn't the Titanic enough? (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, so admittedly Cunard didn't buy into White Star Line until some 18 years after that little mishap with the Titanic, but didn't we show 'em, what hey old chap, shiver me timbers and all that!
$diety{'God'} is apparently omnipotent and all knowing and all that, so what's to say that he didn't plant the iceberg in anticipation of the fact that those people would become spammers in the not-to-distant (for 'him') future! Dumb bastards didn't learn, spammed anyway.
Well, it's a great fantasy, anyway.
Careful - Collateral Damage (Score:3, Interesting)
While I agree with all the disgust the community has against spammers, please try to control your responses.
As a recurrent victim of "Joe Jobs" where a spammer forges my domain name in the Reply-To field of their junk, I'm already having to deal with thousands of bounced messages (currently about 120/minute) as well as the attacks of well-meaning but misguided people on my website.
I'm not sure what I've done to attract the attention of the spammer, but at the moment it looks like they'll succeed in putting me out of business - I can't use email while this is happening, since any filtering which brings the traffic down to a managable level also drops real messages.
First SPAM (Score:2)
Actually it was. Spam is defined [reference.com] as unsolicited e-mail (or a type of meat). What you are thinking about is just normal junk advertising.
If only I wasn't vegan... (Score:5, Funny)
That's right... a vigilante "SPAM squad" manning a truck carrying dozens of tons of SPAM, along with a delivery system not unlike a tree chipper that can accept SPAM by the ton and spray greasy SPAM puree hundreds of feet.
The SPAM squad would pull up to the houses of known spammers and douse the house, car, grounds, mailbox, and anything else in sight in 6-12 inches of greasy salted pork goo that would take years to clean up. If the weight of the flying SPAM puree hitting their front windows just "happend" to break them and fill their living room with chunks of SPAM as well, by "accident," that would just be too bad.
Say, 50-60 tons of SPAM per spammer in flash vigilante "actions" out to keep each of them busy for a few weeks (months? years?) at least trying to clean up their persons, personal effects, and lives and drive the smell (and flies) away. Just spray-and-go and let them come stumbling out, slipping and sliding and cursing, realizing that they have finally gotten their comeuppance.
Spam works because it works... (Score:2)
1) Individuals have to stop supporting SPAM by clicking those emails and purchasing those products.
2) Companies must be prevented from advertising in SPAM fashion and must thus be fined.
3) A new protocol has to be implemented.
All three have problems. The first group will not stop using spam. Obviously, these are people who purchase porn, penis enlargements, diet pills, and things of that nature. Why should they stop if the SPAM email offers
Simple solution: but it wont work without you. (Score:3, Interesting)
This idea has been proposed before, but has been vigorously fought by spammers as unconstitutional. (I'm sure spammers are really concerned about the Constitution.) Their reasoning is that without the ability to send anonymous messages, free speech would suffer. Technically, they have a point. But you can satisfy the requirements of the First Amendment, while curtailing fraudulant headers/return addresses by simply saying that anonymous messages must have an explicit return address and sender id of (for example) 'anonymous@anonymous.anom'. Requiring the "ADV:" tag in the subject line is also a good defense against spam since it is easily filtered, yet can maintain anonymity.
None of these ideas are new, and there have been attempts to get them into law. But until we as spam haters generate enough spam of our own in the form of consumer compliants to our elected officials in an effort to overcome the lobbying dollars being spent to keep spam alive, then nothing is going to change.
In a perfect world... (Score:5, Funny)
-Dracken
No, it was not Spam (Score:5, Funny)
Visit a spammer message board - see the felonies (Score:5, Informative)
Nugster is Offline:
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Reliable Proxie service hourly updated
Hello, I am providing a very good proxie service with hourly updates.
each members list contains 1,000-2,000 working proxies at all times.
all you do is load the list into your mailer llike DM mailer uses links to get proxies set it to hourly updates and wala hands free mailing.
we offer the service for a weekly price of $600 with discount for montly memberships which monthly is $2,200 a $200 savings.
We are here to stay & aim to please. Our service is staffed by a full time crew of 10 people who are constantly maintaing our lists by hand 24/7 to ensure working proxies, unlike others who have there lists checked by computers only not acutally checking for smtp enable. ...
Need money laundering services?
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11
processing Quote: Originally Posted by excelbru
Can someone advise me a reliable bulk proof credit card processor not shutting me down after the first complaints?
...
We can do such processing for you. Take a look at our site www.oxbill.com [oxbill.com]
And much, much more.
If you deal with spam, it's worth some time spent visiting that site. There's a whole criminal infrastructure to support spamming. You'll find "bullet proof web hosting" [blackboxhosting.com], domain laundering, credit card laundering [oxbill.com], virus/worm distributors selling access to zombie machines, mortgage lead buyers, and "pharmacy" operators.
Yes, it's been reported to CERT/Homeland Security and NANAE.
actually, it was before that.... (Score:4, Funny)
Coincidently enough, this has significant commonalities with one of todays more successful spam counter measures, which involves incribing "stop sending me spam" on similarly large rocks and hurling them ferociously at spammers.
Pfft! Fool Evolutionist! (Score:4, Funny)
From Wikipedia (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Proves the Difficulty of the Solution (Score:3, Insightful)
It is no more ingenious than a brute force attack. However, wherever else brute force fails it succeeds in the marketplace. If we tighten our email schemes, turn off pop-ups in our browsers and so on it stands to reason that spam will simply evolve, not die out. It has survived the shift from telegrams to email and all steps in between, it will likely not be quenched by anything less than a superior competitor: something that provides the same service - pairing potential buyers with sellers of questionable goods - yet isn't a burden to anyone who isn't interested.
Much like factoring prime numbers and brute forcing encryption it may well be impossible to replace spam with something "better". But if it will be stopped that's the only way.
I said 'spam is 100 years old' (Score:3, Funny)
Not Even Close (Score:3, Informative)
Postal "spam" has existed since the
post office was first founded. In
the 19th Century, the typical
addressee would be:
The Best Farmer In
Smallville, Missouri
or
Progressive Businessman In
Littletown, Iowa
The worst was before stamps,
when all letters were
sent collect. If someone was dumb
enough to claim one of these, they
paid the postage!
Hmmm, kinda familiar.....
Re:Thanks Billy (Score:5, Insightful)
What a pile of crap. While I am no MS supporter blaming Microsoft is pure and simply wrong.
Blame the people DOING the spamming, blame the people who don't keep up to date with the latest patches (which will dramatically reduce the chance of your box becoming owned).
While you at it blame the people trying to own the box.
Those are owned because Billy and the Boys from Redmond simply have no idea how to build an operating system
Bzzzt. Wrong. See above. (This from a linux advocate).
Re:Thanks Billy (Score:3, Insightful)
One thing that is often mentioned is that anonymous cowards like you give no legitimate information, and are just trolling. Tell your lies elsewhere - most people here are smart enough to know that spam would exist with or without MS.