Porn peddlers and spammers are upping their assault on Google Groups. Many links on the discussion group site link to porn aggregators, some of which redirect to malware sites pushing Trojan horse malware (such as VirusHeat) disguised as video codecs. Anti-spyware firm Sunbelt Software has identified more than 270 Google Groups …
Kill off the Spammers Income
Perhaps I am being too simplistic but to me it seems fairly obvious that spammers aim is to get paid for spamming people to get them to go to various sites or advertise an item from a particular sails point.
Would it be too difficult therefore to put an immediate world wide block on a site that is paying spammers to push forward their site or goods (i.e., the one that you are taken to or the one that the link leads too. If the site is a legitimate one then they can appeal and be cleared after a suitable but very, very fast investigation.
If there is no money to be made by spamming then there is likely to be less interest in doing it.
Stop - because that is what needs to be done to spammers
Cockroaches sound painful.
That is all.
"Sunbelt has warned Google of the presence of the smutty links..."
Good luck with that.
In my opinion, comparing cockroaches to spammers is degenerating to cockroaches. Something lower on the food chain which we all detest would be more suitable (pond scum??). Oh, the never ending battle (*SIGH*).
Erm, this gets raised every time.
Google Groups is a combination of Usenet and Google's own mailing lists, so does this just mean that there is spam on newsgroups?
"Would it be too difficult therefore to put an immediate world wide block on a site that is paying spammers to push forward their site or goods"
The problem with this system is that the Internet is not designed that way - and quite rightly so. Giving one individual or organisation the ability to block traffic to another source is opening up the possibility for abuse - for example, China's blocking of foreign media sources and monitoring of dissidents.
Who is to say what spam is? One man's spam is another man's legitimate marketing. What safeguards would there be against business getting their competitors blocked?
A number of clients I work with have (legitimate) affiliate programs which provide commission to resellers. Most of the affiliates are legit but the seller does not have control over how rogue affiliates market the product until someone complains and they can cut them off from the program. Cutting these businesses off because of the actions of one (independent) affiliate would prevent them from conducting the other 99% of their business which is fully legitimate.
Cockroaches aren't all bad
It can be argued that cockroaches have a legitimate place in their ecology.
Spammers are simply parasites -- they destroy the host system in which they feed.
But like cockroaches, spammers shun the light and are very hard to kill.
Never buy anything offered in spam. It's 99% likely to be fraudulent anyway, and buying it just encourages more spam. Educate your friends!
And where's Level3?
Seems like they're hosting the baddies. But I guess it makes more sense to go after a million different bots making accounts on Google.
Is that it costs virtually nothing to spam 4 gazillion people, so even if they only sell a palet load of viagra - then its worth it.
It should just be against the law. You get caught spamming, then it's a slapping you get. Of course, what you define is spam is another matter.
British Airways have been bugging me recently no end :-@
Any site that is linked to by spam should be removed from DNS/blocked.
Some do not pay spammers to spam, they pay affiliates to link to and promote the product/site legitimately. However not all affiliates do promote in accordance with the guidelines set out by the promoted site. So who is at fault here, obviously it's the affiliate. So, should the promoted site be punished because of the behaviour of affiliates? Why not, I'm sure many just turn a blind eye to this kind of promotion when it is discovered. Perhaps if they were removed from the DNS system/blocked they would vet their affiliates with a little more diligence. A clause in affiliate contracts exposing them to legal action from the promoted site should they spam may go some way to curbing these scummy, scammy, spammy bastards.
Parts of Usenet has been choked with SPAN for years
Google groups is really just usenet, it was around a long time before Google, it was even around a long time before The Register started as an emailed news sheet. It pre-dates the web by years.
Well even back then parts of the usenet were starting to fill up with Spam. I ran a usenet server for a while back then, I discovered alt.sex.pictures, when I ran short of disc space about 6 months before we'd estimated, very soon a load of the postings were by companies selling their wares (using dial up accounts then-no web). Once the web arrived and once people outside the more technical corners of the industry started to here about the internet then it became worse.
Only problem there is that it's then easy to take out rival websites simply by spamming on their behalf. Wait for the very, very fast (yeah, right) investigation to clear them, then do it again. And again.
To M 'Simplistic' Room
Unfortunately laws and awareness don't count for much because spamming is so incredibly cheap to carry out.
It only needs to work 0.05% of the time, and it will be profitable ...
I don't understand why this is news - Usenet was long ago spoiled by free access for greedy people. Am I missing something?
Re: Kill off the Spammers' Income
“Would it be too difficult therefore to put an immediate world wide block on a site that is paying spammers to push forward their site or goods […?]”
Not at all. I'm quite certain that there's somebody in .pk who'll happily do that :-)
"Only problem there is that it's then easy to take out rival websites simply by spamming on their behalf. Wait for the very, very fast (yeah, right) investigation to clear them, then do it again. And again".
As I am almost a nice person, pissing on someones strawberries just so I can sell my own never crossed my mind. You have a valid point.
And yes Cliff, much of usenet sucks these days, if it isn't spam, it's sporge and trollery. I am thinking of investing in a mulit-terabyte SAN just to store my kill file.
Cockroaches why insult them?
educate your friends and family and spay or nuter your spammer for happy world and better world!
i agree with one suggestion even if it had been beaten to death more than a dead horse...
go after the income of these cockroaches with vengence(my apologies to Cockroaches spammers are lower than that)
Even if you had laws that said 15 years for spamming and you must give %25 percent of your earnings to the state after taxes. People would still spam
Just imagine if
your apartment was infested with spammers, it would be an order of magnitude more horrible than roaches.
Bill because he looks a little roach-like.
You assume they're reputable
--- Is that it costs virtually nothing to spam 4 gazillion people, so even if they only sell a palet load of viagra - then its worth it.
Oh come on now. Do you honestly believe that any company that spams you is legitimate? They're not even selling a single Viagra pill, let alone a pallet. They're hoping some moron will give them their credit card details, nothing more.
Paris isn't even that dumb.
Something as bad as spammers...
...Credit card companies. These people hold the key to the success of spam. If they block the accounts of people who are shown to be involved in spam, they could be starved of their income. It would also be fairly simple to find spammers and their agents by simply following the credit card trail - but the credit card companies are greedy. When someone makes a fraudulent purchase on my site, not only do I not get the money but I get a $25 'chargeback' fee. I am not suggesting that we all make fraudulent purchases of viagra!!!
Spam 'em back
Someone needs to set up a crack force that go around making hundreds of millions of bogus orders for the goods the spammers are selling. That should put a spanner in the works.
"Never buy anything advertised in spam"
"Never buy anything advertised in spam" is pointless advice. If you send off your money for a fake Rolex watch (why? The only people who wear Rolex watches, even real ones, are tossers -- who the hell wants to look like a tosser?) you most probably won't receive anything anyway.
"Spam 'em back" won't work, either, because the contact mailbox is invariably unusable.
The people who send all these millions of messages about "\/1/\9r@", counterfeit "//atches", pirated "0EM" software and dodgy shares aren't the ones making the money ..... they're the ones *having money made out of them*.
The real money is being made selling spamming services and tools to people too stupid to realise that merely sending out twelve billion e-mail messages every second does not guarantee you a favourable response -- just like throwing a brick with a piece of paper reading "FANCY A SHAG?" wrapped around it onto a crowded dancefloor is hardly a good way to get yourself laid.
I belong to several Google groups - spam's been coming for some time (and to Yahoo! groups, too).
Yup, it's an irritant (just like our MP) - but I just delete it (Would that I could do the same with the MP - and ALL others of his ilk...).
Stop worrying & just delete the spam & don't follow iffy links...
@A J Stiles
> just like throwing a brick with a piece of paper reading "FANCY A SHAG?" wrapped around it onto a crowded dancefloor is hardly a good way to get yourself laid.
Voice of experience?
No-one uses hosts files then ?
Got myself an hosts file from
Hardly ever see adverts and spammer sites get dropped in at the bottom, never see them either
Isn't that basically Usenet-via-google, basically???
- Boffins attempt to prove the UNIVERSE IS JUST A HOLOGRAM
- Review Reg man looks through a Glass, darkly: Google's toy ploy or killer tech specs?
- MEN WANTED to satisfy town full of yearning BRAZILIAN HOTNESS
- +Comment 'Stop dissing Google or quit': OK, I quit, says Code Club co-founder
- Apple tried to get a ban on Galaxy, judge said: NO, NO, NO