The ethical spammer has something to tell me
I got this cute little message from a spammer today on my wiki:
I really think you should get a life . I bet you’re single and frustrated and decided to upset other people with your small insignificant existence . Just a thought from a spammer . Happy Valentine’s !
I love it when I get these little love notes. It shows me what I’m doing has some effect. The more personal the potshots, the more I think I’m on to something.
The IP number (195.175.37.55) was from Turkey, and a proxy. So I checked my logs. The joker didn’t try too hard to hide himself. The real IP address was easy enough to find:
86.120.197.66
That’s from Bucharest, Romania. And it’s been used to spam extensively in the past.
It’s known primarily from November last year, when he earned a lot of bans from wiki admins. He was into “invisible” wiki spam, and also left this cute message:
We leave content intact . We allow you to easily remove the additions
We respect your pages and appologize for the spam .
We are the Ethical Spammers group .
(this is an oximoron - two terms that are put together but are opposed meaning) .
Which means he’s the spammer known as
He seemed to disappear shortly after November, so I tried to find more info.
Most of his spam back then was subdomains on rx-seote.com. That site throws up 403s for me at the moment.
But a subdomain on buy-quality-meds.info (also his, but made to look like throwaway domains) had a redirect to findrxdrugs.com that might look like an affiliate link to the uninitiated. which has this whois info:
Andrei, Calugaru design@websign.ro
Str. Cicero Nr 111
Bloc S11 Sc1 Ap 6
Drobeta Turnu Severin, 220022
Romania
+40744366836 Fax —
The e-mail address in the whois info used to be a webdesign business. Now it’s blank, but there are invisible links to drug related pages that redirect to findrxdrugs.com. There’s also webspam with that domain from January 2006.
So chances are that really is his contact info.
So, did he stop spamming? Noooo
Lately he’s been spamming a lot of forums, especially yybbs.cgi. Looks like that’s a type of forum or guestbook that’s primarily in use in Japan. And they’re usually spammed to death. I also see some amount of referrer spam.
And I found a log full of spammer entries, where he’s tried to spam:
86.120.197.66 - - [03/Feb/2006:10:24:56 +0900] “POST /cgi-bin/bbs4/yybbs.cgi HTTP/1.1″ 403 311 “-” “Mozilla/5.0″
So, he’s still using his own IP address.
He’s also using a technique where he appends a bookmark with the name of his target keywords. The anchor probably doesn’t exist on the site, since the goal is the redirect from the throwaway site.
Webhost IP numbers I’ve found that may be associated with this spammer:
209.59.132.158
70.85.249.130
70.86.183.34
70.84.123.66
February 10th, 2006 at 6:02 am
I don’t think ethical spamming is an oxymoron, because there are spammers that do differentiate. Think of Bud Weiser, a regular of yours, who preferably spams abandonned sources and - according to one of his sites - would never spam sites he likes or otherwise finds useful. And he’s not the only one. Also, a lot of spammers are responsive if you contact them personally before taking action. But ok, I recognize solving an issue by means of diplomacy has never been your goal, so that’s out of question as spam solution for your sites.
Olliver
February 10th, 2006 at 6:17 am
My issue is not how much *I* am spammed. MY issue is with the trashification of the web in general.
It doesn’t matter ONE WHIT if they spam abandoned blogs, or otherwise try to avoid irritating militant bloggers or others who might stir the waters. The point is how much they litter the web, and how bad things are going to get before it gets better. And probably it will continue getting worse until webspam is criminalized.
You know Olliver, your comments here and elsewhere lately, makes me wonder exactly how connected you are to the spam community?
February 10th, 2006 at 7:12 am
Ann, you seem like one of those super-intelligent beings who creates advanced encrypted algorithms for fun (or something just as complicated).
How do you know so much about the internet? Amazing…
Have a nice day
February 10th, 2006 at 7:47 am
I have to agree with Ann here (not that I would mind). So this guy would never spam sites that he likes? He possibly also wouldn’t crap in his own garden or in the gardens of his friends. Does that make it ok to leave turds in other gardens?
February 10th, 2006 at 8:02 am
Hi Tarun,
That’s the thing about this computer stuff. It’s possible to know a lot about some topics, and be clueless about others. Yet those who know less about the stuff I know about, may think I know everything.
That’s not the case.
I’m not a programmer. I’m not a hacker. There’s so much I’d never even try. I’m not interested, and I don’t know how (but if I were interested, I’d find a way to learn how).
I just happen to be a natural snoop, and have the guts to put it all out there.
February 10th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
Ann, you seem to forget very basic rule: to know what ethical or nor and to follow this ethic or not is a differrent cases. 1st doesn’t guarantee 2nd. I really apreciate Olliver point of view, your one is to simplistic and to me too dangerous for e.g. my country (i.e. Russia) and many other coutries that are far from average EU + North America country.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
Ratty, you’re a spammer, right?
Of course you’d be afraid of webspam being criminalized.
But that’s where we need to go, even in your country.
Because Russia is the number one webspammer country. Well, some are from Ukraine, some from the Russian Federation, and some are from other places that once were part of the USSR. But the fact is we NEED to get webspam criminalized in Russia.
In fact, we need webspam to be criminalized all over the world, if the web is to survive.
Because at this point, I doubt webspam would stop even if Google and the other search engines abandoned the link popularity concept.
The motivation behind webspam as a technique would morph to direct clicks instead of building backlinks.
February 10th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
this has me wondering … what’s the lifestyle of a spammer in romania like?
February 11th, 2006 at 2:29 am
My name is Sergey, I also accept “Sergey S. Kostyliov”, “rathamahata”, and obviously “seo black & white”. Could you please use any of this names next time you are really want to speak with me?
Go back to your comment:
1) Yes I am a spammer.
2) This (I am a spammer) is not a reason for me to afraid criminalisation of webspam. You have already informed enough about my own angle of view about criminalisation of anything. Here is a short post that could be used as a summary to repeat all my points I will repeat here just one cite:
I have already stated that it is not problem to me been completely illegal (if it fits in my personal view on ethic - the good example is illegal drugs).
In case of criminalisation of webspam I will easily change my current job to something not yet illegalised (I have already done that several times for other industries e.g. mail spam). It does not affect me personaly.
Here is another my cite:
All I care is yet another possible area controlable by the law which (law) has already proven (to me) to fail on much simple issues.
I.e. I don’t believe that webspam could be criminalized in Russia without harmfull side effects that outweight any practical use of criminalisation (for Russian citizens outside of any spam industry). We in Russia already have substantial pressure from government (mostly from security forces). I am afraid that criminalisation of webspam (and other promblematic ethic vs. economic collisions) will be done in most harmfull way to an ordinary citizens. E.g. governement could require from any legatimate resident to prove his/her identity (that will be logged possibly coupled with either all further traffic or it’s attribures) before connecting to the internet - if this will happen it will kill last part of the real freedom in Russia - TV, radio and partly newspapers (this part has small share over Russia currently) are kinda censored currently.
February 11th, 2006 at 3:59 am
To Sergey,
Heh, you understand that when you name yourself after a Sepultura song, fail to tell anyone what it refers to, and that name shortens so beautifully to Ratty, and you’re a spammer, that it’s a temptation?
OK, back to the subject.
The criminalization of webspam in Russia is absolutely necessary. There appears to be quite a bit of recruitment going on there.
And you said it yourself, you’ll stop if it becomes criminalized.
And for your other concerns, they don’t have to happen, if they have capable people doing the investigation.
February 11th, 2006 at 5:27 am
Ann, I had not heard sepultura’s song “rathamahatta” (note two “t”), before I actually took nickname rathamahata (note single “t”) someday in 1997. Yes, I had a knowledge that “rathamahatta” is the name of sepultura’s song when I took it, but in 1997 I just liked how it sounds and nothing more. Around 1998 I happened to hear sepultura songs including “rathamahatta” (not two “t”) for the first time and I have to say that I liked some of them at that time and still like to listen some of them (inlcuding “rathamahatta” (note two “t”)) from time to time (though Velevet Underground is ablolute winner for me currently and I don’t like sepultura’s song as I used to like them in 1998). Could you please call me either by full nickname “rathamahata” to avoiding ambiguity with a dictionary connotation of ratty or use any of:
`Sergey’
“Sergey S. Kostyliov’
`seo black & white’
if for any reason you don’t like “rathamahata”? You could even choose your own name for me and ask me will I accept them or not. I really don’t want to attack you in any way… In fact I am a bit deviant person and don’t fully understand why peoples pay so much attention to names. For example I named my own cat “Dzhokhar” (I realy like how it sounds) though I know that this was christian name of the first President of Ichekeria Dzhokhar Dudaev. Many peoples treat such thing like a provocation and of course I know about that. I even know that for say ~10% (exact count doesn’t matter) of my personal reasons to personal choose of names are exactly provocation of other peoples. But it only works for me in abstract I vs. all other world, when it comes down to my communitcation with a real persons (e.g. you and me) I don’t want to provocate many of the real peoples in any way…
I will return to the my view on criminalization a bit latter. Personal issues and constructive discussion should be alone in my opinion.
February 11th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
Quote Spamhuntress:
You know Olliver, your comments here and elsewhere lately, makes me wonder exactly how connected you are to the spam community?
“Those who ain’t with us are against us.”
I get the picture, because I made up my own mind and reject some methods and the entire war terminology for ethical reasons, I belong to the Axxis of Evil. It seems you really have a hard time in understanding people/things that don’t fit into your oversimplistic black/white scheme.
I’m not a supporter of spam and don’t shy off from bombarding ISPs with complaints if someone becomes particularily annoying. I’ve successfully shutdown numerous spambots and thousands of doorways, but I don’t feel the urge to make a fuss about it for I know what I’m capable of myself.
I strongly object any form of stigmatisation, polarisation or any form of violence. To me there’s no “good” or “bad” violence, as it’s always about disregarding someone. You of all people, as confessed Christian, should know how important it is to differentiate. That not every mean is justified just because the intention may serve a good purpose. And that sometimes you need ally yourself with people from “the other side” in order to chase down the real bad criminals, that couldn’t care less about anyone as long as they make profit out of it.
If that’s enough to be classified or suspected as “enemy” than I’m glad to belong to the “bad guys” if the alternative would be stubborn self-righteous folks, who start to panick once things become too complicated for their simple minds.
That’s all I have to say in regard to this.
Olliver
February 11th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
I posed a question to you Olliver, I didn’t make a judgement. I was wondering about you. Based on what you’re saying here, I understand a little more what you’re about, but I don’t agree with what you’re saying you do.
But on to some other things you said.
Sounds like you’re doing what you’re accusing me of doing.
You’re equating me with other spamhunters who advocate violence.
I don’t now, nor have I ever.
And I do understand ethics.
And I don’t believe in differentiating between badder and lesser webspammers in exactly the way you’re describing.
Like I’ve said before, the fight is about webspam as such, it’s not about who is less annoying or more annoying.
The way you’re talking, you sound like you’ve bought into the sob story of some spammer, and halfway believe his actions are justified.
Have you listened to spammers lately? Their brand of ethics is pretty weird. As one SEO said a while ago, they could greatly benefit from reading a book about ethics.
Just because you see everything in shades of grey, doesn’t mean you’re a better person, nor one with a bigger mind.
We can all appreciate that people have it tough, and understand that they’re in a tough spot. But we keep coming back to ethics. Just because someone is in a tough spot, doesn’t mean he’s justified in stealing. Granted, that’s not the same thing as webspamming, but the analogy still holds.
You sound like you’re seeing things in shades of grey because you’re buying into the spammer ethic: I have responsibilities, and I have a bad economy. I spam because I have to. It’s nothing personal, I’ll try and make it easier on you by doing it somewhere else. That’s called “the end justifies the means”. It’s a very basic type of ethics.
And you accuse me of having the same type of ethics here. You seem to feel that what I do is worse than what they do?
What I do is uncomfortable for spammers. I’m fully aware of that. Some think it’s unethical, because I paste what they see as private information out there. But what I do is summarize information that’s freely and publicly available. Don’t want the expose treatment? Don’t spam.
At this point, I’m doing the exact same thing those that fight mail spam have done for years. This is how it’s fought, and this the first step to what will eventually result in laws being changed.
February 11th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
[…] s Ramblings professed his love for Spam Karma. Ann Elisabeth, AKA the Spam Huntress, loves […]
February 11th, 2006 at 7:59 pm
Ann Elisabeth,
Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately it doesn’t fit to what I actually wrote. Interesting though how you pick up inexistent points and use them as base for your conclusions about my personality:
The way you’re talking, you sound like you’ve bought into the sob story of some spammer, and halfway believe his actions are justified.
Just because you see everything in shades of grey, doesn’t mean you’re a better person, nor one with a bigger mind.
And you accuse me of having the same type of ethics here. You seem to feel that what I do is worse than what they do?
Even more interesting how you portrait yourself and what irrational presumptions you use for justifying your actions:
I love it when I get these little love notes. It shows me what I’m doing has some effect. The more personal the potshots, the more I think I’m on to something.
At this point, I’m doing the exact same thing those that fight mail spam have done for years. This is how it’s fought, and this the first step to what will eventually result in laws being changed
Seriously: Have you ever considered talking to a psychotherapist about your distorted perception of the world? Paranoia can become an serious social issue if it’s not treated in an early state.
Olliver
February 12th, 2006 at 3:36 am
Back to the subject:
The criminalization of webspam in Russia is absolutely necessary. There appears to be quite a bit of recruitment going on there.
I see that you’ve changed your opinion. There you said exactly opposite. Here is the cite from you: …I don’t think criminalization will stop spam. That’s my argument… Why have you changed your opinion?
I personally don’t think that criminalisation in Russia (or any other countries) will stop webspam. Why?
1) Email spam was criminalised relatively long time ago. That haven’t killed it, even more currently it is at least as much annoying as it was before criminalisation.
2) Illegal drugs (all types of it) were criminalised for about half an age in Russia. I could still buy them almost any time I want and I do that from time to time. I think that in Russia current juridical status of illegal drugs creates more problems for an ordinary persons than for real drug users.
3) Any of people that were (or still are) involved in illegal (or semi-illegal) activities and could speak about that openly knows how useless (and in some cases even dangerous) could be over-aggressive forms of criminalisation of relatively new things (say drugs, illegal immigration, spam. etc). If you never have been involved in any illegal activities I suggest you to listen more closely to some of peoples a) you trust b) were involved in illegal or semi-illegal activities in the past.
I have to said that I plan to leave Russia in 2-3 years (as soon as I’ll get a degree in clinic psychology - I am currently in process of returning to Moscow State University after half an year of vacation). So I’m not so much worry about future law status in Russia as you seem to think. But I’ve lived in Russia for 26 years and there are some friends of mine and some members of _my family_ (_my family_ differs from my straightforward “biological” family) and I worry about their future, I should add that no one of them have been involved in any spam activity and it seems never will be. Most of them are fairly loyal to _any_ government and this (in case of so highly affected by corruption country as current Russia) could be dangerous for them.
And you said it yourself, you’ll stop if it becomes criminalized.
Besides me there are also others (do you seriously believe that my part of webspam is so high?). Most of them will obviously not do that (that have already happened for email spam, as I already said so many times).
And for your other concerns, they don’t have to happen, if they have capable people doing the investigation.
I do not believe in your words as you seem to believe. It is over-simplistic view. Current government in Russia is clearly uncapable to investigate many issues (e.g. illegal drugs, illegal immigration, religions fanatics etc…) Russia is highly corrupted country and this coupled with many over-simplistic aggressive laws have already created real danger for an ordinary legitimate residents (the good and most visible sign is permanent semi-war situation in almost all Kavkaz’s regions of Russia). Speaking about capable people I have very good example for you: here is your post in which you wronly accounted me as person who made “tigerspice” spam (and “probably” some others). In fact only “emistry” part is mine. I doubt that those theoretical “capable people” will be any better than you in this regard. Laziness coupled with heavy involvement in corruption of many officials creates very dangerous situation to an ordinary legitimate residents of Russia much more then for a real self-made marginals/deviants like me…
February 12th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
To Olliver:
Yeah, I love you too. Heh, you’re really pulling out the big guns, eh? I put that one in the same bin as the love notes from spammers. I reallly don’t care what your motives are. We don’t agree. That’s fine. Your opinion is your business. But the talk about being paranoid? I’ve seen that card used before. Usually when you poke something that hurts, and that’s one of several comebacks used in a manipulative setting. So in this context, I’ll take it as a compliment.
To Sergey:
Yes, I said legislation wouldn’t make webspam go away. That’s still true. But if we didn’t have legislation against e-mail spam? It would be even worse than it is today. We DO need legislation to stop the accellerated recruitment of webspammers.
February 13th, 2006 at 12:51 am
Yes, I said legislation wouldn’t make webspam go away. That’s still true. But if we didn’t have legislation against e-mail spam? It would be even worse than it is today.
Sorry, but I see a good example of wrong deduction here. No one can say would it be worse or better. This is all about methodology. To really prove that criminalisation of webspam was a cause of reduction of email spam compared to situation in which email spam is still legal you need to execute two experiments:
1) control group - world where emal spam is legal.
2) experimentla group - world with criminalised webspam.
Only after both experminent will be completed there is possibility to see if criminalisation was the cause of some effect (say for (1) email spam will be higher than (2)). In fact no one did that clearly. Laws were changed with intention to help but without any logical proof that they will actually help!
This is very common case where purely rhetorical statements are used to hide possible logical errors. Yo DO believe that criminalisation helped but you COULDN’T prove that to anyone. Don’t treat me wrong. I don’t want to say that in case of email spam criminalisation this made situation worse (neither I want to say that it made it better)… I just want to say that you should not use purely rhetorical (i.e. questionable from the pure methodology point of view) statements to prove any theory.
We DO need legislation to stop the accellerated recruitment of webspammers.
You haven’t still give me enough arguments that shows that my worry about possible drawbacks of criminalisation of webspam will not outweigh possible (which is also questionable from the methodology angle of view, btw) positive effect. Compared to email spam where we deal with relatively simple smtp protocol and nothing more in case of webspam there are many complicated cases on top over http protocol and many types of webspam. To really made a conclusion who is guilty (and is particular case was crime or not) in any imaginable situation you would require to have more complicated laws and more complicated procedures. I have already posted possible scenario on how it will be possibly solved in Russia (or any other country) I will repeat it:
E.g. governement could require from any legatimate resident to prove his/her identity (that will be logged possibly coupled with either all further traffic or it’s attribures) before connecting to the internet…
How do you plan to prevent such a scenario?
Ann, could you please really read over all I wrote in this thread (besides about my nicknames
? It seems that you are so sure about you own view on global world problems so you have just stopped to accept any critic no matter how constructive it is… I don’t have any problem with you don’t agree with me - that is normal, but you seem to fail show me the real points where our disagreement born from. If you are so sure about non-problematic scenario of webspam criminalisation for any country - could you please to post a draft of an anti-webspam law for say Norway and Russia? It seems that most of you current writing is purely rhetorical and you so far away from the real and very sophisticated world currently so it is very hard for me to treat you seriously in this thread…
February 15th, 2006 at 10:07 pm
Spam — such a funny little word.
Spammers are the “fringe” of society. So, if we get rid of them all, then what?
Wouldn’t the new edges unravel a bit more, thereby creating a “new fringe”?
If history has shown us anything at all it is that if you continue to clip away at the rights of the “fringe community” and eventually destroy them, then a new fringe is created by default because now, those who were “inside” the fringe, have become the fringe since the old fringe has been cropped away.
So now we are left with a new fringe society to overcome.
So, I ask, How many layers inside are you? How many layers are you away from the fringe element?
Because once enough layers of fringe are removed, then you will certainly find that your element, You yourself are now considered “the fringe element”.
Making laws to send people to prison because they have annoyed you in some way is not a solution, it is a time bomb.
So all of you self appointed internet police, ask yourself……. When will it be you that has become the annoyance, and you that could be sent to prison because someone who believes themself to be better than you have created a law to criminalize your own actions.
and one final thought to ponder while I end this.
At least before email marketing was illegalized in the u.s., I could expect to receive well written and professional sales letters that actually didn’t assult my eyes, but now, I am left to contend primarily with spammers who have no command of the english language and no concept of good ad copy. Yeah, thanks a lot for making it a market that only non u.s. citizens can participate in. I love reading broken english and poorly translated english. oh joy!
February 16th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
Sorry for some mistypes. In the first part of my previous comment (response to the your fist cite from your previous comment) both occurrences of `webspam’ should be obviously changed to `email spam’….
February 26th, 2006 at 11:08 am
FUCK YOU SPAMMERS!
SPAMMERS ARE WORTHLESS TO THE INTERNET!
THEY ARE TRASH and should be considered as PARASITES!
They ruin the INTERNET and they have no honor!
FUCK THEM!
February 28th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
I was really surpised that I managed to write a small piece of software and a gr8 disclaimer that managed to make such a big fuss . I see forums and threads about the ethical spammers . Wikis were great before the nofollow (when we vanished) and yybbs-es are still great .
We tried to keep the original content , did not alter it and we hid our comments . This was a sign of respect for your websites and wikis . Many just wiped their text . We were somehow ethical but , you are right , spam ain’t nice but effective !
Cheers ,
The ethical spammer .
PS: You got the wrong spammer
Who’s crazy enough to show a real name .
And dear SpamHuntress … get a life . I seriously doubt you have one . That’s just my subjective opinion
based on your looks . (Yes , … I’m shallow / superficial too !)
March 3rd, 2006 at 11:41 am
Great site! Very informative –oh, sorry, didn’t mean to sound like a ^%$#@! spammer –because I HATE THEM! I have a guestbook and I am SICK of having to delete entries continuously, every day! I hate spammers and if I ever meet one, he’s got a punch in the nose coming! You sound very smart on this topic. Can you recommend any references for a not-too-bright web master to use in protecting my web site?
Thanks very much,
Ray
P.S. There are no ethical spammers. They all SUCK!
March 3rd, 2006 at 11:56 am
Quote: Spam — such a funny little word.
Spammers are the “fringe” of society. So, if we get rid of them all, then what?
Wouldn’t the new edges unravel a bit more, thereby creating a “new fringe”?
If history has shown us anything at all it is that if you continue to clip away at the rights of the “fringe community” and eventually destroy them, then a new fringe is created by default because now, those who were “inside” the fringe, have become the fringe since the old fringe has been cropped away.
So now we are left with a new fringe society to overcome.
Because once enough layers of fringe are removed, then you will certainly find that your element, You yourself are now considered “the fringe element”.
————————————————–
That is the most ridiculous rationalization I’ve ever heard. Spam Gardener, you’re full of shit. If spammers are outlawed, we will have a nice, neat demarcation point between decent people and spammers. Period.
April 14th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
I don’t believe criminalization will help. I think their source of income needs cut.
Eliminate sites like topsearch10 and others like it that have “affiliate” programs driving (paying) people to do this spamming in the first place.
Make it unprofitable, and it will fade away.
April 14th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Criminalization is one way to combat spam, but removing all affiliate programs would seriously cut down on the spam. But remember that serious sites like Amazon also use affiliates. And the more money involved, the more lobbying, and the less likely we’ll see affiliate programs outlawed.
It would be sooo sweet if affiliate programs were outlawed. Unfortunately, criminalization of comment spammers is more likely, and that in itself is way down the road.
April 17th, 2006 at 11:21 am
Each day I get the most disgusting spam.
If any of these spammers handed out such stuff in person to our children, they would likely get badly beaten or murdered by even the most tolerant people.
Spammers will never understand how much HATE against them there exists until they come face to face with their victims.
I do not condone violence but I would gladly enjoy watching a nakid spammer placed in a room full of angry parents armed with fly swatters
…
- Luke
April 24th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
Keep up the good fight Spam Huntress.
Future generations will look back at parasitic turds like Ratty and insignificant blow hards like Oliver as being deficient in reasoning capacity. Not even their fault really. They just weren’t born with sufficient hardware to come to rational conclusions about the things they observe in life. I do believe that in several hundred years people like them won’t have bred for lack of willing mates, and the world will gradually become a better place.
Meanwhile we’re stuck with them until they grow old and die.
The fact that Ratty wants to defend the privacy of internet users in Russia is very funny - since it’s the exact borderline criminal and amoral activity that he engages in which would drive the Russian government to interfere and impose the very restrictions he doesn’t want to see. He’s a complete idiot.
If everyone just played nicely on the web and ussed the old golden rule, then the governments of the world would have little to no interest in online events. And indeed if there were some proportional cost basis for Spam, as there is with snail mail, then it would be a complete non-issue.
So I’m giving the Blue Frog a try. It isn’t hash-cash, but it’s SOMETHING that imposes a processing price on the spammers for the deeds they do. I’ve used them for only 2 weeks and my 250+ spams a day is starting to drop. (Down to around 175 and falling) I think Ratty’s going to lose to the blue frog. Blue Security seems to be on a righteous path. I’d love to hear what Spam Huntress thinks about them. Maybe Spam Huntress could get a job with them? They’re doing similar detective work on a daily basis to weed out the scum and place the inconvenience back into their court.
Warm regards,
Zebra
May 3rd, 2006 at 11:36 am
This week a spammer, upset by BlueSecurity’s fair approach to fighing spam, sent out several emails - the first (which came across as quite racist actually) was telling people that BlueSucrity itself was a dodgy spamming company. The second was a sob story tyring to get people to unsubscribe from using BlueFrog.
Since those emails I urge every single person who’s not using BlueFrog to start using it. The spammer who sent the messages proved WITHOUT A DOUBT that BlueFrog really works.
The spammer’s messages are posted here http://i-love-bluesecurity.blogspot.com/
November 13th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
[…] Which raises the question: Who is this “Spamhuntress“? And can she really fold metal objects with the power of her sidekick? Turns out her Web site has lots of good resources regarding spam. And, through the power of her hunting skills, she outs spammers and engages others in rambling dialogs. Go Spamhuntress! […]
March 22nd, 2007 at 7:15 pm
I cannot understand that issue of ethical and non ethical spammers.
I know a couple of people who had to take their guestbook down and had to remove their email adresses. They cannot receive any kind of feedback any more from visitors oft their site.
The are not webmasters, just regular people, skilled enough to use some WYSIWYG tool to create their own website, to stay in contact with friends, family or just to meet people with similar hobbies and ideas.
While professional sites and skilled users can take actions against spamming, those users are helpless against spammers.
So what if an “ethical spammer” decides that that website is not worth looking at and spams it? What gives you the right to place you spam, totally unrelated to the page? Do you want to tell me that you visit each page first, before you let your spambots do their work?
My experience is no, otherwise I have no explanation why people would try to post their spam unsuccessfully every day on my page …
When I emigrated, I made a page for my family and friends in Germany. As soon as I got listed in Google, some people contacted us for advice and information. A good thing and one of the benefits of the web. But soon enough the spamming started. Fortunately I was able to build my own defences, but not everyone is able to do that.
I hope that google and co will some day punish the owners of those spam sites by unlisting them. Maybe that’ll be a good way to get rid of those web parasites.