Death to spam!

[Dak]

carrying on from this thread...

 

 

The idea, as it stands at the moment, is for a community-project to create a hosts file that restricts access to websites that advertise via spam, the intent being to damage their profit margin and hopefully convince them to stop being such spammy goits.

 

for this, we'd need alot of people to periodically trawl through their 'junk email' folders to find websites that are advertising by spam, and add them to the list of blocked sites.

 

Who'd be interested in doing that?

 

Also, any ideas/input would be appreciated.

 

first idea/input: before we start, i think we should forumulate an inclusion policy... i cant imagine the website owners would be too happy about this if it takes off, and i doubt anyone fancies getting sued

[RyanJ]

Your more than welcome too have my spam list, its ina hidden GMail folder

 

Just give me a buzz when you need them - I have hundreds of pages of spam so there are quite a few!

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[Dak]

ouch! and i thought i got spammed alot

 

Well, any ideas for the inclusion policy? If the idea takes off, i suppose we could say that a site has to be reported x times before inclusion, but to begin with, i dont think that'll the list will get created unless x = 1.

 

my main concern is that someone would report a site that they actually agreed to recieve emails from, and then forgot that they had. hmm...

[RyanJ]

my main concern is that someone would report a site that they actually agreed to recieve emails from' date=' and then forgot that they had. hmm...[/quote']

 

That is a concern... I guess the best idea would have them send a copy of the spam E-mail so the moderators can decide if it were a spam site or not. Even this method is not foolproof with PHP E-mail fakers and the such.

 

A system like GMails is good - a master block list suplimented by user choise and its quite effective but impractical for an application like this so I think we should go for a submit and moderate system?

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[Dak]

only problem is: how do we discern wether someone has given their permission to recieve spam emails from the site?

 

Also, many spam emails are sent using hacked servers, or using exploits in servers; email-sender spoofing is quite easy, etc

 

i was thinking that we could block the sites that are linked to in the message, and maybe the web-bugs aswell: for example, i have a charming one in my in-box at the moment that reads:

 

From: Mature

 

Subject: Sloppy gum jobs

 

MessageSo, get ready for soft, sloppy gum jobs followed by a nice pinch on the = cheek

 

see my video's inside

 

hxxp://www.newdsite.com

 

 

So, i was thinking that newdsite.com and www.newdsite.com could be added to the hosts file. BUT, the concern is that i may have, at some point in the past, given my email address out without deselecting a 'sure, send me emails' box, so the spam -- whilst annoying -- isn't technically unsolicited.

 

thoughts?

 

(by-the-by, given the pornographic/malware-related nature of lots of spam-advertised sites, i suggest we all un-select the 'automatically parse links in text' option when replying in this thread)

[RyanJ]

only problem is: how do we discern wether someone has given their permission to recieve spam emails from the site?

 

Also' date=' many spam emails are sent using hacked servers, or using exploits in servers; email-sender spoofing is quite easy, etc[/quote']

 

True but the spam mails sent from a hijacked server would not point back to the server and would still point to the intended spam source and so there is no probem.

 

i was thinking that we could block the sites that are linked to in the message' date=' and maybe the web-bugs aswell: for example, i have a charming one in my in-box at the moment that reads:[/quote']

 

Sounds like a good idea too me!

 

So' date=' i was thinking that newdsite.com and http://www.newdsite.com could be added to the hosts file. BUT, the concern is that i may have, at some point in the past, given my email address out without deselecting a 'sure, send me emails' box, so the spam -- whilst annoying -- isn't technically unsolicited.

 

thoughts?[/quote']

 

Well, its true but I say spam is spam. Advertising through mail should be wrong - if they give the option and deselect it by default then you have chosen it and its not spam but if they select it by default or force-sign you when you agree to the TOS then I consider it spam - anyone agree?

 

(by-the-by' date=' given the pornographic/malware-related nature of lots of spam-advertised sites, i suggest we all un-select the 'automatically parse links in text' option when replying in this thread)[/quote']

 

Better make that a rule, also avid links that are anything that may get you banned.

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[reng]

if you need any programming, dB junk or hosting i would be glad to help out

[Dak]

Cheers reng. The 'programming' as such should be quite simple -- a batch file could handle adding to the hosts file, and the equivelent for linux etc i would imagine.

 

Hmm... maybe if this takes off we could eventually have an auto-updater tho?

 

Well, its true but I say spam is spam. Advertising through mail should be wrong - if they give the option and deselect it by default then you have chosen it and its not spam but if they select it by default or force-sign you when you agree to the TOS then I consider it spam - anyone agree?

 

I agree about the forse-sighning (and also where they bury the fact that you will get spammed in a 1,000,000 word EULA), but i disagree with the 'if it's selected by default'*. I currently recieve email from, for exampl, ZoneAlarm, 'cos i (intentionally) didn't uncheck the box when i d/l'd their firewall, and i can imagine that some people didn't uncheck it 'cos they were too lazy to read the page, and might consider them spam (and report them as such).

 

hrm... if there's no functional opt-out link on the mails tho id consider that spam, wether consent was given via check-box or not.

 

----------------------------

* although ideally the box would be deselected by default.

[RyanJ]

hrm... if there's no functional opt-out link on the mails tho id consider that spam' date=' wether consent was given via check-box or not.

[/quote']

 

I don't know, I still think selecting the box by default is spam because people may be russing and the writers of the pages know that - all E-mail signups should be off by default in my oppinion because they know people do not take notice though that could be blamed just as much on the user...

 

I agree with you though that force adding your E-mail address would definatly be spam.

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[reng]

do you guys need dB stuff for this or not?

[5614]

I just check the subject and then delete them... unless I'm in the right mood, in which case I'll get their IP & ISP and email them back rudely.

[Dak]

do you guys need dB stuff for this or not?

 

not sure atm, to be honest. maybe if/when the project grows.

 

--------

 

slight change of tact: to try and get the ball rolling, what'cher all think about this provisional inclusion policy (its geared up to mainly accomodate the low number of people working on this project atm and to use a non-contentiouse definition of spam):

 

Any site that gets suggested once gets included after two votes by the community.

 

Any site who's inclusion seems 'odd' gets reviewed; a single objection results in no inclusion (to be re-reviewed if the site is ever submitted again).

 

As far as what people should do:

 

If you have recieved an unsolicited email from a company, and you are SURE that you haven't given your concent to them to email you, or your concent to a company to share your email address with third partys, then submit any websites linked to into this thread for inclusion.

 

If the site is already on the list, resubmit it anyway (it'll add to the reliability/justification of including it).

 

Before submitting a site, please hover your cursor over the link and check down in the task-bar, to ensure that the link actually points to the site that it says that it does. for example

 

www.scienceforums.net

 

that url points to wisci.org, not scienceforums.net

 

If you notice a site on the spam list that doesn't seem as if it should be there, then flag it up for review.

 

and please turn 'automatically parse links' off when submitting sites for inclusion, or 'break' the link by putting 'hxxp' before it, eg hxxp://www.scienceforums.net

 

Whatcher all think? any suggestions/modifications?

 

-----

 

Proposed safety guidlines for checking spam:

 

Don't open any attachments from suspected spam messages, due to the possibility that they may be viral.

 

Don't view a suspected spam message with 'active web content' enabled, due to the fact that a web-bug may be included, which will alert the spammer to the fact that your email account is active and will result in more spam for you.

 

*in hotmail, mark a message as spam, and then view it from within your junk email folder -- this will deactivate web content for that message.

 

*in gmail, external images are deactivated by default, so no worries about web-bugs.

 

*other email sites/programs?

 

------

 

if anyone is aware of an email site/program that changes links in 'no active web content' mode so that <a href="www.wisci.org">www.scienceforums.net</a> would be displayed as http://www.scienceforums.net, rather than http://www.wisci.org, (ie, the wrong site would be displayed), then please mention it, along with how to safely view spam in email sites/programs other than hotmail/gmail, and any other suggestions etc.

 

Also, if anyone has a suggestion for a name?

[reng]

in thunderbird i have mine set to text view everything anyway..if it thinks it is junk it will display it only text

[5614]

I don't get it. You'll have a list of sites which send you spam email. Then what?

 

And how will you incorporate that into Hotmail, Yahoo! or Gmail?

 

And besides, some spam doesn't come with a web link, should we ignore those?