Biggest local spammers named and shamed

From which of the following companies did you receive spam?

  • Dynamic Seminars

    Votes: 48 64.9%

  • New Heights 1268

    Votes: 12 16.2%

  • SA Webs

    Votes: 27 36.5%

  • Computer Corporation Marketing

    Votes: 17 23.0%

  • Bridging Finance | Making money with SMS Shortcodes | Bizopp

    Votes: 11 14.9%

  • [url]www.we-insure.co.za[/url]

    Votes: 17 23.0%

  • C2IT

    Votes: 41 55.4%

  • Creativehearts.co.za

    Votes: 5 6.8%

  • Laurinda Wernars Database Design

    Votes: 7 9.5%

  • Burgundyrealty

    Votes: 11 14.9%
  • Total voters
    74
rpm why haven't the ISPs that supply services to these companies taken action against them. Surely the ISPs should be named and shamed too as they are not doing anything to help the situation. Oh wait they make money from these guys too so they really don't care. Maybe they should be thrown out of ISPA then for there lack of commitment to the cause? Just asking.
 
MadMailMan said:
rpm why haven't the ISPs that supply services to these companies taken action against them. Surely the ISPs should be named and shamed too as they are not doing anything to help the situation. Oh wait they make money from these guys too so they really don't care. Maybe they should be thrown out of ISPA then for there lack of commitment to the cause? Just asking.
Click to expand...
WE dont have that information, and I am not certain that the ISPs are at fault - they are typically the guys which will report the spammers to ISPA to be included in this list.
 
MadMailMan said:
rpm why haven't the ISPs that supply services to these companies taken action against them. Surely the ISPs should be named and shamed too as they are not doing anything to help the situation. Oh wait they make money from these guys too so they really don't care. Maybe they should be thrown out of ISPA then for there lack of commitment to the cause? Just asking.
Click to expand...

I dont believe the ISP's are at fault, they cannot be held accountable for what flows through their networks as much the same a plumber cant be held responsible for what flow through their "networks".
 
Jola said:
Vodacom is the biggest SMS spammer of all, why is it not on the list ?
Click to expand...

AGREED!!! And to top it all off, to "opt-out" I have to send them an SMS (which will cost me money).

I get so much spam from VC, its not even funny anymore.
 
Vodacom is the reason why I don't even bother checking my SMS's anymore.
 
Just a note - SMS spam falls into the authority of WASPA (Not ISPA). This is related to email spam only, and further limited to ISPA members.
 
rpm said:
WE dont have that information, and I am not certain that the ISPs are at fault - they are typically the guys which will report the spammers to ISPA to be included in this list.
Click to expand...

That information is fairly easy to get. Look at email headers of the spam. Check the IP addresses of their web sites. I don't think the ISPs are being responsible when a lot of the spam originates from servers they host for the these spammers or from mailing services that they themselves sell to the spammers.

s0lar said:
I dont believe the ISP's are at fault, they cannot be held accountable for what flows through their networks as much the same a plumber cant be held responsible for what flow through their "networks".
Click to expand...

It's not the ISPs fault but they are just letting it happen when they can do something about it. Warn their clients twice and 3rd strike and they are out. I'm not saying the ISPs should be watching all the traffic that traverses their networks but what about spam that originates from within their networks? You plumber analogy is cr@p because these ISPs often host these servers for the spammers or even sell them mailing list facilities to produce the spam. They are NOT merely a conduit. The ISPs don't do anything because they are making money from our misery.
 
Hi MadMailMan

I think the ISPs will rely on ISPA for guidance here. While it may seem like a simple process to simply cut off a company which sends bulk emails, the emails may well be completely legal or have repercussions for the ISP if they simply cut them off. A legal process must be followed to safeguard the ISP, and this can be costly and cumbersome.
 
rpm said:
Hi MadMailMan

I think the ISPs will rely on ISPA for guidance here. While it may seem like a simple process to simply cut off a company which sends bulk emails, the emails may well be completely legal or have repercussions for the ISP if they simply cut them off. A legal process must be followed to safeguard the ISP, and this can be costly and cumbersome.
Click to expand...

Maybe I am over simplifiing this but, please correct me if I am wrong. The ISPs sell services with basic T&C. Spamming is generally mentioned in the T&Cs as a big no-no. SPAM is unsolicited email and all ISPs accept this. If an ISPs client is reported as a spammer the client is then asked to prove that the mail was solicited otherwise it's a strike. 2 strikes are allowed and 3rd one gives a ban. Maybe a temporary ban at first and second time a bit longer maybe? What would be the problem with this kind of setup? Apart from the ISPs not making as much money?

My other alternative is to block IPs on my mail servers and firewalls as I come accross them. Then when I get complaints that emails are not reaching my clients I show how those same mail server/IPs are relaying or generating SPAM. Then the ISPs look like complete tw@ts for not being proactive in the fight against spam but still charging top $$ for "secure" networks etc etc.
 
I agree to the Vodacom spam sentiment...we have a bulk corporate deal with them, and you clearly know when Vodacom is at it. You'd hear a sms come through on the other side of the open plan office...by the 3rd sms that have come through, you know it is about to hit you too.

BURN ALL THESE SPAMMERS AT THE STAKE!
 
Oh wait. My bad. The ISPs are helping. They will sell you an anti-spam solution. So they make money off the spammers server traffic and off you via the anti-spam solution. A win win situation if you asked me. Awesome business model. AND they get to say via ISPA that spam is bad.

Feels good to be a gangsta.
 
You may well have a point with the T&C MadMailMan. But when it comes to cutting off services I think it can be very shaky ground. This now gets into the territory of cutting off services for copyright infringement and the like, and therefore snooping on what a person does with his Internet connection. How do you establish whether the mass emails were spam without monitoring the content which flowed through that users’ account?

I think we are all for taking the fight to spammers, but to address it legally may be challenging. ISPA will know exactly what the challenges are here...Ant or Dominic may be able to shed a bit more light in the issue.
 
rpm said:
You may well have a point with the T&C MadMailMan. But when it comes to cutting off services I think it can be very shaky ground. This now gets into the territory of cutting off services for copyright infringement and the like, and therefore snooping on what a person does with his Internet connection. How do you establish whether the mass emails were spam without monitoring the content which flowed through that users’ account?

I think we are all for taking the fight to spammers, but to address it legally may be challenging. ISPA will know exactly what the challenges are here...Ant or Dominic may be able to shed a bit more light in the issue.
Click to expand...

But the ISPs don't have to be big cbrother at all. All they have to do is react to a formal complaint. Then react accordingly. I am by no means endorsing a complete "inspect all traffic" approach. But if ISPs were just more responsable about traffic originating on their networks there would be less, local at least, spam. This means better network reliability and response. That means happier clients, who would probably pay a premium for this convinience.

The legal side is actually cut and dry. The T&C state the rules which as a client of an ISP you accept. Break the rules you get fined or lose your "license". Highways have these rules why shouldn't the info super highway?

I would be very interested to hear a response from ISPA or somebody at the bigger ISPs on this.
 
MadMailMan said:
But the ISPs don't have to be big cbrother at all. All they have to do is react to a formal complaint. Then react accordingly. I am by no means endorsing a complete "inspect all traffic" approach. But if ISPs were just more responsable about traffic originating on their networks there would be less, local at least, spam. This means better network reliability and response. That means happier clients, who would probably pay a premium for this convinience.

The legal side is actually cut and dry. The T&C state the rules which as a client of an ISP you accept. Break the rules you get fined or lose your "license". Highways have these rules why shouldn't the info super highway?

I would be very interested to hear a response from ISPA or somebody at the bigger ISPs on this.
Click to expand...
There are occasionally Spammers on the Hall of Shame that are clients of local ISPs. Those ISPs are informed and I don't know of any cases of the ISPs NOT terminating those spammers as customers.

Unfortunately most of the spammers you see listed are hosting internationally and that is much more difficult to deal with. A number of these spammers are already using techniques like throw away domains and are sending their mail through dozens of cheap virtual servers to avoid blacklisting.

At this stage the best that can be done is to try and filter these spammers from our inboxes and then not support these companies. If no one was buying from them then they would have no reason to continue spamming :erm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X