?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Comments

( 10 comments — Leave a comment )
dissolvedego
May. 4th, 2006 08:12 pm (UTC)
spammers should be tied to a post in a public place surrounded by examples of the spam e-mails they sent out. and while they are tied to the post they should not be protected by any law. >=)
kaolinfire
May. 4th, 2006 09:17 pm (UTC)
But what about the self-righteous anti-spammers that don't seem to have any care for collateral damage?
dissolvedego
May. 5th, 2006 07:00 pm (UTC)
you mean the innocent penis enlargement and viagra sites?
kaolinfire
May. 5th, 2006 07:13 pm (UTC)
The egg-throwers and taunters that have the spammers tied up who notice the spammers have things to toss back--so they pull someone else out of the crowd to use as a shield.
zekedragon
May. 4th, 2006 09:07 pm (UTC)
I can't help but agree with Blue Security's methods of attacking spammers, and this article on the subject is entirely biased. I've taken a look at what Blue Frog does, and it simply sends a 1 to 1 ratio e-mail Opt Out for any spammer on the net. Since spammers since tons of messages to poor saps like you and me, they end up bearing the full brunt of those e-mails directly back to their own servers, and that pissed them off. So they started attacking Bluesecurity.com, which went down, and in the interest of keeping their website up (they assumed two things incorrectly, I will admit, that being one: The Six Apart servers could take the load and two: Most of the spammers were attacking their IP address, not the domain name), they moved it to their blog. There's been tons of others who have done the same thing for short periods to keep themselves running, last time I remembered, but it seemed to have bit them in the ass. This is why, I think, that Six Apart kept quiet about the 'attack'.

'Course, that's my opinion.

- Zeke
kaolinfire
May. 4th, 2006 09:16 pm (UTC)
Sounds like terrorism to fight terrorism to me. But I don't want to get into that. It's argued back and forth in the comments on the post I linked to, with absurdist statements on both sides.

They made one or two bad assumptions, perhaps. But then they didn't fix that ignorant assumption in a timely manner. Boom, site goes down. Umm. Change DNS back? TTL should have been 2 hours, tops, better to have it at 30 minutes when you're bouncing lookups. But regardless of their slow response to the damage they were doing, given those two bad assumptions, I'd still call it criminal negligence.

"I can't turn my hose off--hey, my neighbor has a pool. I can run it into my neighbor's pool and he won't notice, and maybe by then I'll have a repair shop to look at my plumbing... [goes inside, goes to sleep]. Meanwhile, neighbor's pool's pump/drains can't handle the amount of water said hose is pumping out, and neighbor's house floods..."
zotsf
May. 5th, 2006 02:55 pm (UTC)
I'm all for Blue Security and what they are doing. A little collateral annoyance in this war is a minor thing for us to pay.

I'll agree that it *was* a bit shitty of them to dump the traffic on someone elses server, but perhaps now they have a dummy environment set up to point to if it should occur in the future.

Back to what they are doing. I am so fucking mad at the spammers who are fighting with Blue Security. Raging fucking mad. They supposedly hacked into one of the Blue Security websites, grabbed names and emails of customers, and sent emails to those customers telling them if they did not stop using Blue Frog, they would specifically target them for ever.

Fucking extortion!

Tie them to their boxes, and dump them in a semi-frozen river...while the damn things are plugged in.
kaolinfire
May. 5th, 2006 07:13 pm (UTC)
I am so fucking mad at the spammers who are fighting with Blue Security. Raging fucking mad. They supposedly hacked into one of the Blue Security websites, grabbed names and emails of customers, and sent emails to those customers telling them if they did not stop using Blue Frog, they would specifically target them for ever.

That's fucking insane!
kari_marie
May. 8th, 2006 01:35 am (UTC)
Am I the only person who really doesn't get much, if any, spam? I was gone for four days, just got home today, and I had a whopping 28 spam emails (including 3 phishing emails) and it's an address I've had for 5 years now, and I use it everywhere on the net.

I can deal with 7 messages a day. Yeah, lame, but honestly, I hardly even notice them.

So yeah, spam is lame and sucks and it's a waste of time, but maybe we all just need better spam filters? I honestly don't get why I don't get very much spam, but I just don't. Props to Hotmail. :-)
kari_marie
May. 8th, 2006 01:36 am (UTC)
(And FWIW, I don't really like BS's tactics either... the whole "stoop to the level of" thing.)
( 10 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

February 2016
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
2829     

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by chasethestars