Why you get spam

Gary Lawrence Murphy garym@canada.com
21 Apr 2002 10:55:13 -0400


Oh boy, more spam spam!  Yup, nothing evokes a lively thread like
a spam thread.  Can't be beat.  And to think that I started this one.

>>>>> "c" == cdale  <cdale@techmonkeys.net> writes:

    c> I forgot who it was, but some time back, there was a grup of
    c> people who'd send a copy of their kernel to every mail they got
    c> a spam from.  LOL C

Guilty as charged, but this no longer works: The spammers _expect_
retaliation, which is why they hide behind relatively innocent
ignorants who get sucked into their "affiliate" scams.  I also used
to delight in hunting spammers like swamp-rats, spending my lunch
hours tracing, exposing and sniping them, being disappointed if I
didn't bag at least two spammers a day.  Alas, those days are gone.

Now that I have spamassassing to collect spams, I've been treating
them as data so I can make better analysis of the menace --- it's very
obvious that, unlike just a few years ago, these latest are disposable
accounts, not some poor sucker who's going to get themselves banned
from every ISP in their town (not like the good old days, for those
who remember why the Toronto Freenet collapsed ;)  These new spams
are like a true virus, evolving to accommodate each new antigen.

So even the recommendation to find out the geographic location ... if
you _did_ find an address, I'll wager 10 to 1 the person you found has
been set up, and even for those who actually did push the 'send'
button, attacking them is as stupid as waging the "War on Drugs" by
incarcerating every suburban teen we can find selling a lid to their
buddies (oops, sorry, that's what we _did_ do ... yeah, well, but the
fact remains, it didn't work, did it?)

-- 
Gary Lawrence Murphy <garym@teledyn.com> TeleDynamics Communications Inc
Business Innovations Through Open Source Systems: http://www.teledyn.com
"Computers are useless.  They can only give you answers."(Pablo Picasso)