Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   Significant results so far

   

   Dave Barnes, Nov 12th, 2008 @ 12:51pm

   
   

   This http://www.spamcop.net/spamgraph.shtml?spamweek says it all.
   
   A 75% drop in spam. Amazing.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Nov 12th, 2008 @ 1:05pm

   
   

   Aha! So that's what happened... Wow.
   
   I can definitely say this is the first time I've actually seen a difference, and what a big one it was. Today, I woke up to only one (1!) e-mail in my Spam folder, where I usually see 10 to 20. With that big a difference, I knew something had to be up.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Traffic Drop

   

   Karl, Nov 12th, 2008 @ 1:15pm

   
   

   Picture, 1,000 words, blah blah blah.
   
   http://www.dslreports.com/r0/download/1368730~af0d17d2c90ea0591df6b6f9fb98d636/spam.gif

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   PaulT (profile), Nov 12th, 2008 @ 1:18pm

   
   

   It's nice that security flaws are addressed by those people who are exposing them to the world - even without the spam problem, it's a good thing. However, there will only ever be one truly effective solution to the spam problem - get the idiots who are handing money over to the scammers to stop doing so. I fear there's too many morons out there for this to be realistic, sadly.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Nov 12th, 2008 @ 1:54pm

   
   

   zombie botnets need brains

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   This is the second time

   

   Anonymous Coward, Nov 12th, 2008 @ 2:15pm

   
   

   When the first of this sort was cut off, my spam dropped from 6000 to 4000 a day. Today it seems to have dropped another 25% to 3000. I am pleased.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   What are they?

   

   Danny (profile), Nov 12th, 2008 @ 2:46pm

   
   

   Mike wrote: "there may be better, more efficient ways to tackle the problem"
   
   Agreed this is whack-a-mole, but what are those better, more efficient ways? I can't think of anything practical that would work.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   But for how long

   

   Danny (profile), Nov 12th, 2008 @ 2:48pm

   
   

   I see posters above say spam is down today. OK, but for how long will it be down? Mike is right, these guys will find other ISPs before long.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   better ways

   

   bigjuliefromchicago, Nov 12th, 2008 @ 3:11pm

   
   

   "and there may be better, more efficient ways to tackle the problem."
   
   such as....................?
   
   personal data point: Canadian pharmacies seemed to disappeared of late.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    Re: This is the second time

    

    Earl, Nov 12th, 2008 @ 3:26pm

    
    

    If I got that much spam every day I'd have stopped using email a long time ago.... Sorry to hear it. Hope it improves more still, for your sake.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    

    Karl, Nov 12th, 2008 @ 3:27pm

    
    

    I find it interesting that NY AG Cuomo can spend months pretending that newsgroups are bastions of evil and getting ISPs to sign deals that have them do nothing differently..... yet a major crime syndicate host in business for years despite ample evidence from researchers just slips out of his grasp...

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    The Best Anti-Spam Solution

    

    Difranco, Nov 12th, 2008 @ 3:36pm

    
    

    ... was Blue Frog by Blue Security Inc. I wish someone else would develop something similar.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13.  

    

    guy one, Nov 12th, 2008 @ 4:44pm

    
    

    Tank you Google! i see no spam in the inbox on either my gmail account or my Google apps account. The best spam filter out there.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

14.  

    Not just whack-a-mole

    

    Dalton, Nov 12th, 2008 @ 8:23pm

    
    

    Going after the ISPs is actually very efficient. You predict that the criminals will "find some other hosting company that will gladly take them on", but when an ISP or host knows it might get kicked off the Internet for doing so it will be much more reluctant to do that.
    
    The ISPs and hosts are certainly the most equipped party to monitor what is happening on their own networks, they just need the proper incentives to do it.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

15.  

    too bad they'll recover too soon

    

    Svetlana Gladkova, Nov 12th, 2008 @ 11:22pm

    
    

    My major concern is about security experts now having tons more work to do to track the same spammers on other servers belonging to some other hosting company. It looks like with every situation like this they need to start afresh and I don't think that reducing the volume of spam for a day is really worth it.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

16.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Nov 13th, 2008 @ 1:06am

    
    

    I'd have a different attitude toward this. In absence of a better and more efficient method (which nobody has suggested), I applaud this effort even if spammers will find a new host - at the very least this serves as a warning to potential host. It's very easy to say that there should be a better method without suggesting one.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

17.  

    Re: Not just whack-a-mole

    

    eclecticdave (profile), Nov 13th, 2008 @ 2:43am

    
    

    > The ISPs and hosts are certainly the most equipped party to monitor what is happening on their own networks, they just need the proper incentives to do it.
    
    Let's see ...
    
    ISP's monitoring network data to prevent copyright infringment - bad.
    ISP's monitoring network data to prevent spamming - good?
    
    I fail to see how you can have it both ways.
    
    While I hate spam as much as anyone else, ISPs should not be required to police their network to prevent illegal activity - not for any reason.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

18.  

    Re: Re: Not just whack-a-mole

    

    Xanthir, FCD, Nov 13th, 2008 @ 6:15am

    
    

    Let's see ...
    
    ISP's monitoring network data to prevent copyright infringment - bad.
    ISP's monitoring network data to prevent spamming - good?
    
    I fail to see how you can have it both ways.
    
    While I hate spam as much as anyone else, ISPs should not be required to police their network to prevent illegal activity - not for any reason.

    
    Well, it's actually quite simple. Copyright infringement is merely a legal issue to ISPs - there's no reason for them to care about it until people get lawyered up. Spam, on the other hand, is something with actual *effects* on them. If we could eliminate all spam in an instant, the effects on network congestion would be IMMENSE. Thus, ISPs have a good reason to police themselves and each other for spam - it's for their own survival.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

19.  

    Re: The Best Anti-Spam Solution

    

    Rich Kulawiec, Nov 13th, 2008 @ 7:01am

    
    

    This is nonsense, of course, which is why the first people to condemn what the spammers at Blue Frog were doing were the world's most experienced anti-spammers.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

20.  

    Spam

    

    David, Nov 13th, 2008 @ 12:42pm

    
    

    Figures could well be true. There`s a hell of a lot less spam in my G-Mail spam box over the last few days.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment