Re: [Full-disclosure] spammer wades into US Presidential race

Actually, it would hurt my wallet, and waste my time, compounding the
already incurred by receiving the spam in the first place.

But it's worth your time to forward spam to everyone on the

Simply put, it's evidence of a crime. The mail was forwarded in its
entirety to provide the group with the fullest amount of evidence

Also, if you really believed that it might come from his campaign,
I didn't say that.

Then what benefit was there to forwarding it along?

1. The public interest is served in debating whether it's appropriate
that presidential campaigns are spamvertised. Spam is unethical, is
it appropriate that potential presidents are potentially unethical?

2. The public interest is served in locating the source of the spam.
Paying spammers sends money to organised criminals who do cracking,
credit-card fraud and identity theft, as well as spamming, and who
knows what else. It is supporting an industry that the world can do
without, and it is wholly inappropriate to be paying organised crime
to get elected.

3. Focusing the group mind on the case and thus maximising possible
lines of inquiry.

4. Analysis of spam for the benefit of the group.

5. Opportunity to forward an anti-war message globally.

6. Scooping by a whole 3 days.

Simply postulating that it's his (considering spamming is not a nice
I didn't do that.

Then I apologize if I read too much into your email.

I was careful not to directly point any fingers, although I do admit
to suspecting an "over-enthusiasic intern" in his campaign. However
with more thought, I now think that only a fool would spamvertise his
own campaign, and, given that the mail was outrageously worded,
gramattically incorrect etc, I think it's reasonable to add his
opponents to the list of suspects.

Paying gangsters to beat up your opponents is also unethical and
should not be tolerated in a presidential campaign.

But now you mention it - why would a spammer
divert precious bandwidth from sending profitable spam? That's gonna
cost him money. Either the spammer donated his resources for free,
or someone paid - and who is that most likely to be? You? Me? Ron
Paul? Hilary Clinton? You decide.

I'd rather wait for some form of evidence. Right now all that is
available is gossip.

I forwarded all the evidence I had, the fulltext as well, with
headers, much better than the snippet in wired.

thing) without even checking his record on such a topic, and claiming
"newsworthy" isn't quite... nice.
Check out Wired's take on it here:

If you read the article from Wired, *they* contacted Paul's campaign,
and performed some basic investigation. That's rather different from
forwarding a spam message on to a mailing list.

They are a news service, that's what they do. My role, as a
recipient of the mail, is to report it, that's what I did. Repeat,
it is not just spam, it is evidence that, in all likelihood, one of
the presidential campaigns purchased spamming services from some
seriously dark people, enriching them and encouraging them to crack
more machines and send more spam than ever. This is wrong, very
wrong and that overzealous intern needs to get it.

It seems the net is somewhat overrun with his apologists.

At what point has anyone acted as his apologist (recently, on this

I was referring to the Wired article and the online polls mentioned

I've see others clarifying positions he's taken on
particular issues/votes, and I've questioned your lack of
investigation before forwarding the message on to everyone.

As you admitted, the guilty party is unlikely to admit their guilt,
so there is no point asking them. I also doubt his voting record is
much use. The fact is, someone paid, and I'll bet the fact is also
that ALL the candidates have a squeaky-clean anti-spam record. By
your logic, I should never have received the mail in the first place.

Finally, I have no idea who you are, asking me to run down blind
alleys is a good way to get me to think you are working for the same
people I am complaining about.

I have no intention of doing any further research. That is a job for
the police and the appropriate federal electoral authorities.


Stuart Udall
stuart at@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx net -

* Origin: lsi: revolution through evolution (192:168/0.2)

Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia -

Relevant Pages

  • Re: [Full-disclosure] spammer wades into US Presidential race
    ... But it's worth your time to forward spam to everyone on the ... it's evidence of a crime. ... other candidate's employee, supporter of candidate, supporter of other ... indicates that it is unlikely that Paul's campaign is the one behind ...
  • update on the notorious spammer (evidence sent to abuse)
    ... Netfirms have replied to me and in turn I have supplied evidence of the spam in form of a screen shot of google groups search results as well as the link to the search. ...
  • Re: Helen does pick em! Spolier THURS
    ... On PM tonight there was a lively discussion between an ex GM-opposer, who is now neutral, having reviewed the scientific evidence, and a current GM-opposer, who seemed to be convinced that governments, scientists and the BBC to are ignoring, covering up, or otherwise fabricating evidence to refute the masses of evidence that GM crops kill tigers, cause floods, and invite black holes to visit our planet. ... I don't think they keep records according to the planned recipient - they just check for spam - so we probably don't have figures now. ...
  • Re: Why does this group have so much spam?
    ... paying for Internet access for your neighbours (and anyone driving down ... Unless the 'neighbor' is your friendly local spam or malware merchant ... There are, of course, flaws in this argument, and I take it as evidence ... were intending to rob a bank and wanted a fast getaway car? ...
  • Re: Is a MSN security policy assisting spammers?
    ... anyone would need to research the spam. ... > agree to download any attached graphics first. ... > Is there a way of forwarding these fraudulent emails to the proper ... > authorities without exposing oneself to the criminal that sent the email? ...