Microsoft Opposes NZ Anti-Spam Bill/Who are these NZ Spammers..
See: http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3384447a28,00.html The Article Quotes: "Mr Hamlin says his understanding is that there are just three big spammers operating in New Zealand, responsible for producing about 5 per cent of the spam that arrives in New Zealanders' inboxes." The question is.. who are these NZ spammers? Where does he get this information from? Thanks Craig
And Google goes and puts this ad at the bottom... Sending Email Software Send targeted emails to your clients. Fast, Easy & Inexpensive. www.mach5-software.com
On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 07:46 +1200, Craig Whitmore wrote:
See: http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3384447a28,00.html
The Article Quotes: "Mr Hamlin says his understanding is that there are just three big spammers operating in New Zealand, responsible for producing about 5 per cent of the spam that arrives in New Zealanders' inboxes."
The question is.. who are these NZ spammers? Where does he get this information from?
Surely the network operations community in NZ would know if this were the case? That's a lot of spam from just three people - for me alone it works out to about three messages a day that I actually see. Any volunteers for the LARTing if we can find out who these anti-social *mumble mumble* little prats are? -- Matthew Poole "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
Matthew Poole asked:
Surely the network operations community in NZ would know if this were the case? That's a lot of spam from just three people - for me alone it works out to about three messages a day that I actually see. Any volunteers for the LARTing if we can find out who these anti-social *mumble mumble* little prats are?
www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?ObjectID=3518682 Contains the identity of one NZ based spammer... These NZ based mainstream spammers don't use NZ ISP's for their work, they use offshore services, and often offshore people... Keith Davidson
www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?ObjectID=3518682 Contains the identity of one NZ based spammer...
These NZ based mainstream spammers don't use NZ ISP's for their work, they use offshore services, and often offshore people...
True. but I'd like some proof that what Microsoft are saying it true. Any comments from Microsoft on who these people are? Yes there was Shane Atkinson who was a "NZ spammer" but he says he got out of the spam a while back. Being able to identify these people and get rid of 5% of Spam coming into a mail server would be great. And as Matthew said: "Any volunteers for the LARTing if we can find out who these anti-social *mumble mumble* little prats are?". I put my hand up. Thanks Craig http://www.spam.co.nz (yes its me)
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Craig Whitmore wrote:
The question is.. who are these NZ spammers? Where does he get this information from?
Well there were those Cashevolution people that some NZ ISP let spam for a while... Microsoft are a big company with large anti-spam departments, they have lawyers and investigators to track down people who send spam and I guess some of it links back to NZers. Several spammers have been mentioned by name in this list or in the press ( no idea if any are still active) in the past and people have come across others at times. One even did a submission on the Legislating against Spam Discussion Document. Right now there is no real point in naming them since no real action can be taken against them (unless you have a spare few hundred thousand to bury them in lawyers). Best to wait until the laws go though and quietly slip their names to the enforcing dept. -- Simon J. Lyall | Very Busy | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/ "To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.
Some signal from /. http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/22/1717258 ====================================================================== [Microsoft is] concerned that it will cut into their profits on selling spam-filters, such as their patented and amazingly stupid SenderID concept, and that it will interfere with the bulk mailing list management tools they sell tightly integrated for use in Microsoft Outlook. ====================================================================== [Microsoft] also suggests that CAN-SPAM has been effective in deterring spammers [Yeah right :) ] ====================================================================== When Microsoft gets CAN-SPAM, instead of the people of a country getting real spam protection, Microsoft gets to sue spammers on behalf of their customers for damages. Even after getting revenue from spammers, and selling antispamware that doesn't work so good. And buying Gator, the infamous spammer. Microsoft doesn't want the government protecting you or your privacy from spammers. Because Microsoft takes on the job, privatizing privacy, they get paid every which way. And we get spam out our pieholes. ====================================================================== "Mr Cunliffe says Microsoft's proposed "opt out" approach is too weak and has been rejected. "We decided it's going to be opt-in. End of story. Why should you have to opt out of spam?" ====================================================================== Microsoft makes money by providing Spam filtering and by suing spammers under CAN-SPAM. Anybody that expects Microsoft to be in favor of anything that reduces one or more of their revenue streams is obviously delusional.
Whoops, missed this one: Some signal from /. http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/22/1717258 ====================================================================== Recently MS acquire Frontbridge a spam filtering company that was highly effective in its job of stopping virus and spams. You pay a monthly fee and all your mail goes through them before reaching your mail servers. I guess M$ see spam fighting as the next source of revenue for the company. With spam costing people billions of dollars in lost productivity, who wouldn't pay a few hundred millions to get rid of it. Of course, if the government stepped in and put a dent in the problem, that's just that much more lost revenue for M$'s new acquisitions. That would be communist/terrorists. We should leave all the problem solving to corporations... Right.
Craig Whitmore wrote:
I spoke to Ryan Hamlin before the Dompost, and really wouldn't say that MS *opposes* the proposed legislation - which has yet to be read in parliament. On the contrary, when talking to Hamlin it was apparent that MS is in favour of a legal solution to combat spam simply because there is no technology fix for it. Looking at the SenderID/SPF kludge, and comparing that to e.g. MS suing the speedos of "Snotty Scotty" Richter, I'd have to agree. You have to hurt the spammers hard and remove the financial incentives to carpet-bomb people's inboxes. Also, MS wants the law to leave room for private entities - like ISPs - to be able to sue spammers so that the enforcement doesn't just lie with our overworked and under-resourced government departments (the ComCom and DIA). This seems like a good thing, as it would allow ISPs to go after spammers (maybe in conjunction with the government) who have caused them monetary loss. MS also proposes liability protection for ISPs when they are being (ab)used as spam conduits and for blocking/filtering spam. I think this part should be defined better, however, because there are ISPs that take spammy money quite happily while saying they're not responsible for what their customers do. Yes, I've seen examples in NZ... Simon mentioned one already elsewhere in the thread. :) Microsoft is lobbying for existing business relationships to be recognised in the new law. Businesses may have customer relationships that pre-date the law, but in order to use those, a company would have to seek permission from everyone once the legislation comes into effect. For instance, lots of people sign up for things and forget about it - under the proposed law, companies sending messages to them would incur big penalties unless they somehow get their customers to opt in. While I can see Microsoft's point, the whole "PEBR" thing would have to be framed very carefully so as to avoid abuse. Hamlin said "PEBR" messages would have to be tagged with something like "ADV" and also be relevant to the existing relationship. That is, if I purchase product/service A from company Y, it doesn't mean they can spam me with messages for product/service B, C and D. Defining all this in law and eventually testing it will be a challenge though.
The Article Quotes: "Mr Hamlin says his understanding is that there are just three big spammers operating in New Zealand, responsible for producing about 5 per cent of the spam that arrives in New Zealanders' inboxes."
The question is.. who are these NZ spammers? Where does he get this information from?
Ask Tom Pullar-Strecker or Ryan Hamlin that... don't think anyone on NZNOG would know. Would like to know the answer as well. -- Juha
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Juha Saarinen wrote:
Craig Whitmore wrote:
Microsoft is lobbying for existing business relationships to be recognised in the new law. Businesses may have customer relationships that pre-date the law, but in order to use those, a company would have to seek permission from everyone once the legislation comes into effect. For instance, lots of people sign up for things and forget about it - under the proposed law, companies sending messages to them would incur big penalties unless they somehow get their customers to opt in.
I understood one of the concerns to be that MS wanted the "PEBR" status to supersede a previously-stated desire that the person or entity NOT be contacted by the advertising company with advertising material in the future. That is, a person ticks the "I do not want to receive future advertising from XYZ Widgets Ltd or their business partners" box on some mailer, and MS now want that stated desire to be ignored because e-mail is not the same as dead tree advertising. Is that an incorrect interpretation? I've not actually read the legislation, it's just an objection that I've seen raised elsewhere. -- Matthew Poole "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
Matthew Poole wrote:
I understood one of the concerns to be that MS wanted the "PEBR" status to supersede a previously-stated desire that the person or entity NOT be contacted by the advertising company with advertising material in the future. That is, a person ticks the "I do not want to receive future advertising from XYZ Widgets Ltd or their business partners" box on some mailer, and MS now want that stated desire to be ignored because e-mail is not the same as dead tree advertising.
Is that an incorrect interpretation? I've not actually read the legislation, it's just an objection that I've seen raised elsewhere.
Doesn't sound very reasonable that... can't see how a law where consent sought is ignored would ever pass. Here's what MS has filed with the MED: http://www.med.govt.nz/pbt/infotech/spam/submissions/37/37.pdf Have a read of this clause: "The following scenario is one that would likely be prohibited under an opt-in approach. Where a consumer visits a vendor’s web page, the vendor may be able to collect anonymous information about the consumer." Note: anonymous information. "The vendor may then use the anonymous information to send the potential customer an advertisement regarding their product. " Well, in that case the information is clearly not anonymous. "This is not the type of email that is at the heart of the spam epidemic, but it would likely fall foul of opt-in legislation. To ban these types of advertisements would leave consumers with less information and fewer choices in the marketplace, and our businesses with less opportunity to cultivate new customers." Humm. Visit a website and get spammed? Legally as well. Guess it depends on what MS means by "send the potential customer an advertisement" but if it's email... -- Juha
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Juha Saarinen wrote:
Matthew Poole wrote:
Here's what MS has filed with the MED:
http://www.med.govt.nz/pbt/infotech/spam/submissions/37/37.pdf
Have a read of this clause:
*SNIP* And this clause: "10. Should New Zealand adopt an opt-in, double opt-in or opt-out approach in legislating against spam? Why? Microsoft believes that New Zealand should adopt the opt-out approach in legislation against spam." That really says it all. Not even opt-in, but straight opt-out. No wonder people have said that MS are posturing. -- Matthew Poole "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
Have a read of this clause:
"The following scenario is one that would likely be prohibited under an opt-in approach. Where a consumer visits a vendor’s web page, the vendor may be able to collect anonymous information about the consumer."
Note: anonymous information.
"The vendor may then use the anonymous information to send the potential customer an advertisement regarding their product. "
Well, in that case the information is clearly not anonymous.
"This is not the type of email that is at the heart of the spam epidemic, but it would likely fall foul of opt-in legislation. To ban these types of advertisements would leave consumers with less information and fewer choices in the marketplace, and our businesses with less opportunity to cultivate new customers."
Humm. Visit a website and get spammed? Legally as well. Guess it depends on what MS means by "send the potential customer an advertisement" but if it's email...
Sounds like it is a blanket phrase that is not tied to a specific technology. Maybe it is vague to cover targetted adverts on the web page too?
On 08/24/05 09:40, Juha Saarinen wrote:
Craig Whitmore wrote:
I spoke to Ryan Hamlin before the Dompost, and really wouldn't say that MS *opposes* the proposed legislation - which has yet to be read in parliament. On the contrary, when talking to Hamlin it was apparent that MS is in favour of a legal solution to combat spam simply because there is no technology fix for it. Looking at the SenderID/SPF kludge, and comparing that to e.g. MS suing the speedos of "Snotty Scotty" Richter, I'd have to agree. You have to hurt the spammers hard and remove the financial incentives to carpet-bomb people's inboxes.
Just to add a little more media: http://y3m.net/files/audio/gr,hamlin,microsoft,spam-2005-08-16.mp3 (brief radio interview with RH last week) Zach.
participants (8)
-
Clark Mills -
Craig Whitmore -
criggie＠criggie.dyndns.org -
Juha Saarinen -
Keith Davidson -
Matthew Poole -
Simon Lyall -
Zach Bagnall