Re: [Asrg] Re: Anti-spam laws do work, FYI. There's proof.

[Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com>]

On July 29, 2004 at 18:46 david at vex.net (David Maxwell) wrote:
 > It's just a question of multipliers. Any MTA that accepts multiple
 > recipients for a message multiplies a spammer's bandwidth by that much.
 > Viruses/trojans are just another form of multiplier. ISPs have shown
 > that they are happy to accept spammers on their network and ignore
 > complaints. Spam is workable without viruses.

It's not just the bandwidth and computrons (which are helpful to
spammers), it's the IP mobility.

Spammers' methodologies are to use an infected zombie for about 10,000
messages and then switch to another.

If they're blocked the zombies will actually coordinate finding
unblocked zombies. I see it here all the time, blocking a slew of them
elicits a stream of zero-length messages. If those sources aren't
blocked some of them start spewing spam.

There's a lot more going on than just bandwidth here.

It also provides a certain amount of (at least in their minds)
plausible deniability since at best we have these 1,000+ machines
"mysteriously", none owned or related to the spammer in any legal way,
spouting some spam message.

I could imagine ways to tie that back to the spammer, but no doubt
it's easier to wriggle out of than if they were all coming from a
machine in his or her home via an IP address they were paying on.

 > As for your mainstream advertisers question - I have no idea. Since
 > senders aren't authenticated in any way, I can't know which messages
 > came from mainstream advertisers.

Well, you know the difference between being sent an ad for a Porsche
or Macy's vs H3rB at L V1Agr at .

 > > Previously, years ago, they may have used other methods of
 > > distribution, but those methods have been successfully cut off.
 > > 
 > > I'd say "all" cut off but as they say, never say never. But the usual
 > > old-fashioned methods of throwaway accounts etc.
 > 
 > Simply not true. Read the list archives.

What's not true?

 > >  > Spam was present on the net before commercial ISPs and Windows hosts
 > > 
 > > Now you're splitting hairs and playing with semantics, do you mean
 > > Brad Templeton's archive of the 1978 message from the DEC salesman?!
 > 
 > I was thinking of Canter & Siegel.

You don't think people used windows systems in 1994???

*We* began as a commercial ISP in 1989.

etc.

But anyhow whether Windows systems are involved or not is a red herring.

The net was much more open prior to several years ago and folks like
Canter & Siegel could just buy a $20/mo acct and spam massively from
it. They didn't even attempt to hide their identity.

As I've said much of that sort of thing has been cut off or gets cut
off very quickly.

 > > It's not clear that spammers make much money at all. It would be nice
 > > to see some hard evidence either way rather than more folklore.
 > 
 > How about a Porsche?  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4631849/

It's a $47,000 Porsche, big deal. You can get into one of those for
under $5K (downpayment) and around $500/mo.

The Verizon lawyer for the Ralsky suit, at the 2003 spam conference,
made a big point about how these guys tend to spend every penny they
take in as fast as they can.

But, more importantly, there is absolutely no evidence that this not
very expensive Porsche was bought with proceeds from spamming.

But even if he did, even if he actually paid it off, that's less than
$50K.

 > Again, spammer revenue has been documented in the list archives.

Yeah? Show me.

All I've seen is innuendo like your Porsche link.

Show me a 1040, a 940, corporate taxes, payroll reports, etc.

Don't tell me one more time that one guy owned a porsche and another
bought a house etc.

That's not evidence, that's innuendo at best, and some of it (like a
lousy $47K Porsche being passed off as if it were a $200K Porsche
until you read the article carefully) isn't even very good innuendo.

Anyhow, it's an honest question.

I realize you believe you're in a tug of war and just want to bat this
back like some sort of beer-addled adrenaline-infused barroom sports
argument over who's going to win the pennant but how about some hard
facts rather than this sort of low-value reflexive response?

Let's try to get to some facts:

What was the approximate typical gross revenue of a top (5? 10?)
spammer in the past 12 months (6/30/2003...6/30/2004)?

Would you say it's more like:

a) $10,000 (or less)
b) $10,001...$100,000
c) $100,001...$1,000,000
d) $1,000,001...$10,000,000
e) $10,000,001+

Since you say it's common knowledge and readily available in the
archives I'm sure you'll have no problem answering this question and
showing why you believe your answer to be correct.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs at TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
The World              | Public Access Internet     | Since 1989     *oo*

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg