Spam Assassin, while a very clever program, is as misdirected as the "Canned Spam" legislation. It has no effect on the real economics of spam: who pays for it.
Somebody is paying for the spamming, and we know exactly who it is. The URL of that organization is prominently displayed in every item of spamail. It is the advertiser.
The advertiser is right there out in the open, easy to locate. If they're not, the spam isn't doing its job, and wouldn't have been sent. And easy to locate means easy to go after, easy to sue, to fine, DoS or whatever.
Dinging the advertisers, and dinging them hard, will instantly put the spammers out of business.
Spamming can be eliminated without blocking, white lists, or anti-spoofing RFC's. Just go to where it's pointing.
To draw an [ugly, graphic] picture: a dog comes and poops on sidewalk in front of my house, and I step in it. Yelling at the dog is going to be only moderately successful, building a poop filter is difficult, messy, and leaky (as Spam Assassin demonstrates) . Following the dog's leash and fining the owner is what works.
The owner doesn't bring the dog back since s/he doesn't want to pay another fine.
The advertiser is right there out in the open, easy to locate. If they're not, the spam isn't doing its job, and wouldn't have been sent. And easy to locate means easy to go after, easy to sue, to fine, DoS or whatever.
When I read the grandparent, I thought the same thing.
But I strongly doubt this would happen a lot. No, I am not saying to just go with it. I am saying that these URLs make an excellent indication at who to suspect.
The $ passed should be traceable (look under Marketing in the books). Larger businesses must be sticklers for accounting while smaller ones probably can't afford the "service" (and yes, I know about Enron and Worldcom).
The accounting trail would put the nail in the coffin, but not the spam
What I had suggested in other posts regarding spam is this:
Let the FBI actually buy something from a spammer, trace the money, as its being bought with a CC, then prosecute whoever cashes the CC transaction. They do buys for drug busts routinely, so why not.
Spam Assassin, while a very clever program, is as misdirected as the "Canned Spam" legislation. It has no effect on the real economics of spam: who pays for it.
I'm not sure why so many people on Slashdot think this, but when you have a good idea, it doesn't mean the other ones are bad.
Your idea is good. The cops should indeed go after spammers exactly as you say. However, that won't get all of them. One recent spam I got was sent from Brazil, advertises a site hosted in China, and transfers the money t
There are 3 main costs to spam Server - CPU/Storage Bandwidth User time to read/sort it
User time is expensive. Bandwidth and servers are relatively cheap Email filtering saves the most valuable resource, this helps limit the damage of it. Nobody is saying this is the ideal case, but it is an effective tool.
"Well hello there Charlie Brown, you blockhead."
-- Lucy Van Pelt
Get the owner, not the dog..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Somebody is paying for the spamming, and we know exactly who it is. The URL of that organization is prominently displayed in every item of spamail. It is the advertiser.
The advertiser is right there out in the open, easy to locate. If they're not, the spam isn't doing its job, and wouldn't have been sent. And easy to locate means easy to go after, easy to sue, to fine, DoS or whatever.
Dinging the advertisers, and dinging them hard, will instantly put the spammers out of business.
Spamming can be eliminated without blocking, white lists, or anti-spoofing RFC's. Just go to where it's pointing.
To draw an [ugly, graphic] picture: a dog comes and poops on sidewalk in front of my house, and I step in it. Yelling at the dog is going to be only moderately successful, building a poop filter is difficult, messy, and leaky (as Spam Assassin demonstrates) . Following the dog's leash and fining the owner is what works.
The owner doesn't bring the dog back since s/he doesn't want to pay another fine.
No owner, no dog, no spam.
Get the owner.
Kill the spam.
Re:Get the owner, not the dog..... (Score:2, Insightful)
The advertiser is right there out in the open, easy to locate. If they're not, the spam isn't doing its job, and wouldn't have been sent. And easy to locate means easy to go after, easy to sue, to fine, DoS or whatever.
Re:Get the owner, not the dog..... (Score:1, Insightful)
But I strongly doubt this would happen a lot. No, I am not saying to just go with it. I am saying that these URLs make an excellent indication at who to suspect.
The $ passed should be traceable (look under Marketing in the books). Larger businesses must be sticklers for accounting while smaller ones probably can't afford the "service" (and yes, I know about Enron and Worldcom).
The accounting trail would put the nail in the coffin, but not the spam
Re:Get the owner, not the dog..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Let the FBI actually buy something from a spammer, trace the money, as its being bought with a CC, then prosecute whoever cashes the CC transaction. They do buys for drug busts routinely, so why not.
Re:Get the owner, not the dog..... (Score:2)
I'm not sure why so many people on Slashdot think this, but when you have a good idea, it doesn't mean the other ones are bad.
Your idea is good. The cops should indeed go after spammers exactly as you say. However, that won't get all of them. One recent spam I got was sent from Brazil, advertises a site hosted in China, and transfers the money t
Two Words (Score:1)
Cost of spam (Score:2)
Server - CPU/Storage
Bandwidth
User time to read/sort it
User time is expensive.
Bandwidth and servers are relatively cheap
Email filtering saves the most valuable resource, this helps limit the damage of it. Nobody is saying this is the ideal case, but it is an effective tool.