http://www.rlslog.net/80-percent-of-spa ... 10-people/

[quote]80 percent of spam from only 10 people!

Posted on 15.11.2006 at 17:04 in Tech News by Martin
Really interesting spam news appeared on The Inquirer today. All the spam filling your mailbox every minute originates just from 10 people. Ten well aimed silver bullets would take care of 80 per cent of the world’s spam, according to the anti-spam organisation Spamhause. According to Security Pro News, Spamhause thinks that there are only ten people that are responsible for most of the spam in the world.The worst is a “multi-aliased spammerâ€

I love the fact they apparently know who these people are and yet do fuck all about it. Gimme those bullets, I'll sort 'em out

This article is dangerous, for someone may really come to idea to pull the trigger.

Btw, it isn't people who's doing big deal of job. It's their machinery. Why would you not just take them their toys and crush them, as their eyes are filling with bitter tears of a chimp who just lost his peanut?

No need to kill them, just storm their houses with special forces and pillage the place to dust.

i'd rather kill them so they can't do it again. Perhaps I'd settle for ripping their eyes out and taking their hands away so they can't make more machines... hehe.

nah but seriously, I know with the internet its awkward coz of the millions of international laws that cover it and overlap, but i don't think there's any country that would not like to see spammers jailed/fined/punished somehow.

except maybe the countries that make big heaping piles of cash from income tax.

Anyway, killing those 10 won't make a difference. 10 other people would then become the spam kings. The problem is that spam is profitable. Once spam stops being profitable, it'll stop (mostly).

So either we charge people to send email on a per-email basis (*shudder*), we teach people not to buy shit from spam (good luck), or we somehow magically manage to block 100% of all spam before it gets to the intended recipients.

Maybe ISP's should be given more power. Say, to detect if any one location/registered user is sending more than X emails p/week, and is not registered (and paying) a business with rights to send that many emails.

God... So you would forbid people to send as much emails as they wish, or just bugg them for that? Personally, I'd have more probs with you than with spammers in that case.

For me, theres a line between sending many emails, and spamming.

And for me between "more than X emails p/week" and "more than X same/similar emails p/week".

Even if you do that, you will have to have an overall picture, as someone may -just for fun- send the same email from Y accounts. And these acounts may be from completely different ISPs in different parts of world.

But then you dont know what a newsletter is, and what spam is. Which is why the right to send newsletters should be done under regulation i think.

Fuhrer Derf's Policy
----------------------

Any email that is sent in quantities greater than X is classified as newsletter. If you wish to send newsletters you must register yourself as a sender of newsletters. If you send newsletters without having registered, your ISP will detect it and take disciplinary action. If the ISP notices youre newsletters are infact spam, it will take disciplinary action.

Now we need a clear definition of spam. Spam = email sent at any random generated email address, or any email address belonging to any person that has not explicitly agreed to recieve such email.

From knowing difference between A and B you define not knowing difference between B and C? Who the hell was speaking about C?

My opinion on this is: whatever you do to limit regular users, without being tyrant of course, there will be ways to cheat the system and spam people. So, the only result would be limiting people who are not spamming, which is an offense on them, moreover because they did nothing wrong.

Now, let speak about C. Why would one have to pay to deliver mass emails to the people who wish that emails (ethical side)? To whom? Why, again? (technical side)

In the fuhrers last draft policy, he withdrew the idea of charging.

lol....the fuhrer....anyway....

there are positives and negatives to any spamming solutions. Some ISPs already ban other ISPs or IP ranges that they get alot of spam from. The result is that alot of legitimate emails get blocked. IE...this web host. Powweb apparently has had some spammers (or insecure scripts that allowed spamming) and as a result some very large ISPs blocked all emails from Powweb...like AOL and I think Time Warner. hehe...so...that can be bad.

Other stuff to remember....most spam isn't sent from someone's own account. It's sent through other means. Insecure mail scripts is a big one. Another one is insecure SMTP (mail) servers. Another is botnets....where someone's computer gets hijacked via a root kit or something. They may not even know they're sending emails.

So it becomes really really hard to block. So either we rewrite how email is sent... or something. I don't think there's an easy answer.