Spamming to hide fraud

An interesting article at NetworkWorld last month, describing spam bombs to victims of fraud and identity theft to hide the transactions and notifications from financial institutions.

The targets are individuals, whose identity and personal information the thieves already have. The victims’ email inboxes suddenly get flooded with thousands upon thousands of emails — as many as 60,000 during a 12- to 24-hour period — that contain no links, no graphics, and no advertisements. “[The contents are] nothing but mash-ups of words and phrases from literature,” he wrote.
[…] the real point is to distract the user from valid email, which will likely include confirmations of purchase receipts or balance transfers from fraudulent transactions made with the victim’s credentials.

This doesn’t seem to be a widespread problem currently, and I expect that many of the major ISPs will identify this as a mailbomb and stop the mail. As many of these mails are coming from botnets, too, many ISPs will block the mail during the SMTP transaction. I think for most people, there isn’t a huge risk. However, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be aware.

The challenge of Gmail
Happy Valentines Day

Related Posts

About that spam suit

John Levine has a longer blog post about the Smith vs. Comcast suit. Be sure to read the comment from Terry Zink about the MS related claims.

Read More

Light blogging for a while

Sorry for the lack of substantive posts, things seem to have gone completely out of control and I’m not finding a lot of extra cycles to sit down and blog. I’ll try and get some stuff up this week, but I’m also getting ready for MAAWG and the sessions I’m a part of there.
There was an interesting post by Romer over on his personal blog. If you don’t know, Romer helps maintain one of the commercial mail filters. He recently got spammed by one of his vendors and talked about how this is probably not the best idea. Al adds his own take on companies assuming permission. I’ve talked about taking permission in the past but haven’t touched on things like “spamming the guy who runs the filter.”
You’d be surprised, or maybe you wouldn’t, about how many people who run filters for large organizations get spammed regularly. You wouldn’t be surprised to find out that those people do factor in their own personal spam load when adjusting their organizational filters.

Read More

Email verification – what are we verifying

One of the ongoing discussions in the email space is the one about address verification. Multiple companies have sprung up to do “real time” email address verification. They ensure that addresses collected at the point of sale are valid.
But what does valid mean? In most of these contexts, valid means that the addresses don’t bounce and aren’t spam traps. And that is one part of validating email addresses.
That isn’t the only part, though. In my opinion, an even more important thing to validate is that the email address belongs to the person giving it to you. The Consumerist has had an ongoing series of articles discussing people getting mis-directed email from various companies.
Today the culprit is AT&T, who are sending a lot of personal information to an email address of someone totally unconnected to that account. There are a lot of big problems with this, and it’s not just in the realm of email delivery.
The biggest problem, as I see it, is that AT&T is exposing personally identifiable information (PII) to third parties. What’s even worse, though, is that AT&T has no process in place for the recipient to correct the issue. Even when notified of the problem, support can’t do anything to fix the problem.

Read More