SCN: Spam

Tue Apr 11 20:05:33 PDT 2000

x-no-archive: yes

=======================

Spammers get aggressive: Readers report threats and e-mail bomb 
attacks  

by Ed Foster

(InfoWorld)---As if it's not bad enough that readers are getting more 
spam than ever, it appears that spammers are becoming more 
aggressive and even downright belligerent in asserting their right to 
send junk e-mail however and to whomever they please.   

Judging by the unsolicited commercial e-mail forwarded to me by 
readers, the volume of spam -- porn site come-ons, get-rich buncos, 
bulk-e-mail tool promotions -- just keeps increasing. But the tone is 
also getting harsher as hard-core spammers seem bent on 
intimidating people into accepting their messages by using such 
tactics as threats of retaliation to those who report them to ISPs, 
claims of legal sanction for their activities, and mail-bomb attacks 
on anti-spam activists.   

"I've been running the rounds lately with a particularly obnoxious 
spammer who apparently dials directly into my ISP's server with a 
PPP [Point to Point Protocol] connection and mail-bombs every 
address he has," wrote one reader. "What's particularly aggravating 
is that all the messages contain a line about how to remove yourself 
from a mailing list (which you never, ever signed up for) by visiting 
a Web site that apparently doesn't exist all the time and smells 
suspiciously like a site trying to accumulate a large database of 
suckers to sell to the highest bidder."   

I can sympathize, having recently been subjected to a 24-hour mail-
bomb attack on one of my e-mail addresses. I assumed I was 
targeted because of what I write about spammers, but the trail of the 
perpetrator also led to a very suspicious Web site that asked for a 
great deal of information from anyone who wanted to report a 
spammer from their domain. So it's quite possible I was just another 
random victim, which is even worse than being attacked for anti-
spam activities.   

There's no question, however, that spammers are more aggressive 
against those who actively resist them. Many are citing the long-
dead "Murkowski" amendment (usually called S. 1618), which failed 
to pass Congress last year, as giving them the legal right to send 
unsolicited commercial e-mail. Some spammers even claim that any 
attempt to report them to the abuse address of their ISP either will 
violate the spammers' civil rights or will result in the spam 
recipient's own account being closed.   

The proliferation of "spam-friendly" ISPs is also presenting 
obstacles to those who try to get spammer accounts closed. After 
making it clear that virtually any abuse report will be considered an 
unwarranted flame attack, one self-proclaimed "bulk-e-mail-friendly 
ISP" declared, "We send all flamers, hackers, and people using 
vulgar language to the FBI and Interpol on a monthly basis."   

A reader who complained to a domain abuse address about spam 
he'd received from them got back a response with the subject line 
"Who Cares."   

"Your complaint has been received," the response read. "We are 
happy to hear from you but, frankly we don't give a damn about how 
you feel about spammers. Stop wasting your time trying to stop the 
dissemination of information in a free marketplace. ... Please, 
understand that until there are laws that strictly prohibit bulk 
electronic mailing, I will continue to solicit business using this 
medium."   

Another variation on this theme is pseudo-ISPs that say they aren't 
responsible for monitoring their customers for spam abuse and who 
instead ask the abused recipient to register with some opt-out list. 
Of course, such global opt-out lists are invariably address-collecting 
scams themselves, and registering with them only gets you on more 
bulk e-mail lists. (It's one of the ironies of the bulk e-mail business 
that so many of the lists the spammers sell to one another are 
compiled from opt-out and remove requests, virtually guaranteeing 
that the list buyers are getting few real prospects for their money.)   

Some even encourage those who want to get off spamming lists to 
throw themselves at the mercy of the spammers. After pointing a 
spam recipient to some phony opt-out lists, one spam-friendly ISP 
added, "contact one of the many bulk e-mail companies and ask 
them to put you on a global remove list." For good measure, the ISP 
added they couldn't do anything about the specific message 
because it contained invalid headers, which spam almost always 
does.   

Spammers are adopting plenty of aggression tactics. Several I've 
seen recently demand that recipients who wish to be removed from 
the list call a 900 number. Readers report they're getting more junk 
e-mail than ever from list-hosting services where the spam 
message is disguised as an invitation to join a list. And several 
recent spam attacks have been traced to e-mail accounts that were 
hijacked after rightful owners fell victim to a Trojan horse that got 
their log-ins and passwords.   

Why are the spammers becoming so much more aggressive? 
Perhaps it's because they figure they can do what they want now 
that so many big corporations are themselves resorting to 
unsolicited commercial e-mail, a theory we'll explore more next 
time.   

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *