[Scspamcop] Re: low importance - anyone know what this spammer is peddling?

[Gideon_70]

I've done even more.  I've located the spammer and contacted them by phone.
I've also had their 1800 numbers flagged and in one case, turned off.  I've
contacted the local police department in the town/city they operate out of,
and even offered to go pay them a visit in person.

As to overseas spammers, translating a complaint into whatever language the
spammer uses and forwarding that to the police department of their province
has on one occasion stopped ALL spam from that source.

While I am a big fan of the passive attitude, I am also a big fan of making
just as much of a stink as you legally can.  Shoot, once, I found out  that
the spammer/scammer was actually in a shopping center about a block from my
house!  I once worked for him!  He went from legit business to scamming 2.00
from as many people as he could with a fake "Internet Mall".  I think he is
still in jail.

My point is this, sometimes, it does pay to be aggressive, make a phone call
and actually talk to someone in person.  They hate that.

"Mike Easter" <MikeE at ster.invalid> wrote in message
news:f92492$epk$1 at news.spamcop.net...
> Mike Easter wrote:
>
> > It is a big waste of time for a citizen to try to uncover the nature
> > of a scam.  The guidelines are 'defend yourself'.  The way you defend
> > yourself the most efficiently is to not open/read your spam.  You also
> > defend yourself by not corresponding with the spammer.
>
> Larry in AZ might not agree with me about this or might find me
> 'intolerant' of 'normal' spammee behavior, but to me it is part of an
> antispam philosophy, so I will elaborate.
>
> Not everyone is going to be a spamcop reporter;  so that version of
> antispam action is limited to some very tiny 'subset' of spam
> recipients.
>
> However, a much much larger percentage of the population can be
> convinced to never aid a spammer/spamvertiser or spamsupporter.  That is
> a form of passive spamfighting, to pledge to never ever do anything to
> aid a spammer.
>
> Therefore, there is no need nor advantage in opening and reading a spam.
> That opening and reading if done insecurely might result in 'signalling'
> the spam generator that the spam has been opened.  In terms of scoring
> points by a little game I imagine, a spammer scores points if s/he gets
> the spam into your inbox instead of blocked or filtered or diverted to
> Junk;  because that means that the spammee is putting hir eyeballs on
> the spam's subject and from and that is to the spammer's advantage.
>
> A spammer scores even more points if the result of the success in
> getting the spam into the inbox and getting the spammees eyeballs on the
> subject and from result in the spammee opening and reading the spam.  It
> doesn't matter what is going on in the mind of the spammee,
>
>  - That is the stupidest spam I have ever seen!
>  - What on earth is going on in the mind of this spammer?
>  - I wonder if this is really a good deal in here?
>  - Ohmigod I can't believe they sent this!  Eeek!
>
> From a 'psychological' point of view, the important thing is the
> 'interest' -- any kind of interest.
>
> If you think that you are going to defeat the spammer by uncovering hir
> plot to defraud, you are wrong.  You are wasting your time.
>
> From an antispamming perspective, I can help spamcoppers understand
> spamcop and parsing headers.  I can try to convince the public to filter
> their spam into a Junk folder and to pledge to never aid a spammer which
> is best done by never having to see a spamsubject or spamfrom which
> hasn't already been identified as spam.
>
> Then, to be a stronger passive antispammer by never opening and reading
> a spam.  To reinforce that concept, I'm saying that it is a /better/
> passive antispammer who never opens and reads their spam than the
> antispammer who is just pledged to never aid a spammer.
>
> Further;  there are spamcoppers - spamcop reporters - who are not as
> 'healthy' in the antispam behaviors as some passive nonreporting anti-s.
> There are reporters who open spam to see if there is a good deal and who
> are not completely pledged to never aid a spammer.
>
> Spam works because it is human nature to be curious and curiously
> interested.  When the spammee is exhibiting those curiosity behaviors, I
> try to convince them that in terms of antispammer 'integrity', they are
> best to be pledged antispammers than curious spamreaders.
>
> Yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as an advanced antispammer who is
> capable of doing more 'destructive' things to spammers by opening spam
> and reading spam and visiting spamsites to look for vulnerabilities.
>
> The fact that there is such an antispammer animal doesn't mean that I
> should think that every Santa Claus I see on the street during the Xmas
> season is the real thing -- and it doesn't mean that spamcoppers should
> put on their cloak of being a spamcop reporter to justify being a
> curious spamreader.
>
> Those are some psychological considerations to be gained from discussing
> this spam.
>
> -- 
> Mike Easter
> kibitzer, not SC admin
>