Jump to content

Man gets 9 years in prison for spam crime

Anathema

By Anathema
in General

 Share

Recommended Posts

Terror

Terror

Posted
Posted

well well.. great. Although death sentence should've been good too :-P . Well ok maybe not. But still. I hate spammers. Good to see one behind bars.

Tako

Tako

Posted
Posted

and about time too.

Anytime I open my hotmail account there are dosens in there about viagra , p***s enlargers , loan markets etc.

now what to do about the rest of them, maybe my frien in al-quaida knows....

Andrew

Andrew

Posted
Posted

I don't understand how you could get 750k a month for spamming. I don't see how anyone reads the spam, let alone visit the website, or order anything from it.

Andrew

Andrew

Posted
Posted

That won't happen, as people are still pirating software and media even after people have been sued. (including grannies and 14 year olds).

Maybe if they made these spammers eat spam everyday they are in jail they might think it over. ;D

erjin999

erjin999

Posted
Posted

I don't understand how you could get 750k a month for spamming. I don't see how anyone reads the spam, let alone visit the website, or order anything from it.

Many many idiots do follow those spams and make it worthwhile. Maybe thats what we need to target ? Make it a waste of time for them...

He IMO should've gotten a fine equal to all the money he earnt and a jail sentence equal to all the years he has been spamming.

That would be good.

Also, maybe like Microsoft were thinking, if I remember correctly, make each email cost in terms of CPU power, inconsiquential for us, who send 5 - 10 mails in a single go max, but for spammers who send 1,000,000+ per day it would hurt badly.

It could be done by requiring all email be encoded in a certain way, or it is rejected by all emial servers...perhaps ?

EDIT -=-=-=-=-=-

Oh, and I am also glad they locked him up...but only 9 years ?  :-[

erjin999

erjin999

Posted
Posted

But if the remaining non-hacked servers dropped noncomplaint emails, it would still work. It would only take 1 working legit email server to be in the path.

ken124578

ken124578

Posted
Posted

Well, bandwidth = the amount of data a computer connection can send.

If I send an email to you I use some bandwidth to put it on the internet and send it to you (for example it takes 1Mb)

With the new scanning method I send an email and it goes to that single server (1Mb used) then that server must upload it again (another 1Mb) before it comes to you = double the useage.

If you do that with everyone that single mail server gets overloaded and uses up a lot of bandwidth.

Timenn

Timenn

Posted
Posted
I don't understand how you could get 750k a month for spamming. I don't see how anyone reads the spam, let alone visit the website, or order anything from it.
Many many idiots do follow those spams and make it worthwhile. Maybe thats what we need to target ? Make it a waste of time for them...

Spam is very quickly profitable. Since sending out all those emails is hardly an effort, less then 0,01% of the targeted people have to reply positively on it to make it profitable. And there are indeed that many idiots.

Why it has such a low cost is also because spam is usually sent by people whose computers are infected by a virus or such. That happens without the owners of those computers even knowing about it...

erjin999

erjin999

Posted
Posted
With the new scanning method I send an email and it goes to that single server (1Mb used) then that server must upload it again (another 1Mb) before it comes to you = double the useage.

First off in case you though I was saying it would only need/have one email server doing this, then there has been a misunderstanding. I was thinking every server would be like this, but it would only require one to be like this for it to work (one email server in the path of the email, not one email server out of all email servers !). To bypass this spammers would need to make a new sort of network of email servers that didnt drop non-cost-incurring emails, and still wouldnt get through as the final destination would ultimately be a legit and proper email server (most likely my ISP's POP server).

As for you statement...I highlighted the bits that I dont quite follow...

The first bold point I guess I already addressed. The second one about the server "must upload it again"... why must the server upload an email that shouldnt be transmitted any further, again ? (Can you please clarify what you meant by that, am still a little confused).

If you mean there is overhead to be transmitted, some kind of code to verify that a time cost was incurred by the originator of the email, then perhaps yes. but it wouldnt need to be too huge.

erjin999

erjin999

Posted
Posted

Something like that, but I prefer this highly teechnical drawing I have spent ages on preparing  :P

Basically, as my ISP (aren't they allnice and law abiding ?  ;D) is my last point of connection with regards to emails (or my email host) it will drop emails that have not had the small cost in time spend to prepare them.

[attachment archived by Gobalopper]

Ice_Cube

Ice_Cube

Posted
Posted

Are you talking about this?

I had no idea you were an artist ken  ;D

Surely only 2 email servers are usually involved? Thats what email headers tell you if you take a look....

ken124578

ken124578

Posted
Posted

Modern arts.... i'm quite proud of myself 8)

---

What i'm trying to say is that if it involves an EXTRA server it means that the amount of bandwidth used will be higher (much higher if it is applied to everyone)

If it doesn't require an extra server... then it's just a spam filter; we got plenty of those :P

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.