Are spammers using scripts to mass submit?
- Thread starter ChampJ
- Start date
jimnoble
DMOZ Meta
No comment 
.
(which shouldn't surprise you)
.(which shouldn't surprise you)
That suggestion has been made MANY times before, but (despite the presence of self-proclaimed "undoubted security experts" in some of the discussions) you're the FIRST person who has asked that QUESTION.
Which is, of course, critical. And I salute your extraordinary cluefulness.
The answer is: no, automated submittals are not a problem. OUR problem is best described as a "manually-implemented HIGHLY-distributed denial of service attack" -- that is, hundreds of thousands of submitters, each submitting a few sites each day or week. It all adds up to a spam every few seconds.
Another related question: are these manual submitters gormless enough to fail a Turing test? Many are, particularly if they don't realize it's a test, but many others aren't. That's one reason we don't talk much about the tests we consider applying.
And yet another followup: of all our submitters, who are most likely to persist through Turing-test hurdles to finish the submittal -- the professional spammers or the casual wannabe-helpers? And unfortunately, from all the signs of determination I've seen from breed-a-mole submittals and forum badgers -- the professional spammers are more likely to tolerate a bit of inconvenience. After all, to the spammers it would be only another 20 seconds of well-known rote drill, every day or so -- and to well-wishers it would be a slap-in-the-face "we don't trust you" first impression that is likely to keep them from considering a second impression.
Which is, of course, critical. And I salute your extraordinary cluefulness.
The answer is: no, automated submittals are not a problem. OUR problem is best described as a "manually-implemented HIGHLY-distributed denial of service attack" -- that is, hundreds of thousands of submitters, each submitting a few sites each day or week. It all adds up to a spam every few seconds.
Another related question: are these manual submitters gormless enough to fail a Turing test? Many are, particularly if they don't realize it's a test, but many others aren't. That's one reason we don't talk much about the tests we consider applying.
And yet another followup: of all our submitters, who are most likely to persist through Turing-test hurdles to finish the submittal -- the professional spammers or the casual wannabe-helpers? And unfortunately, from all the signs of determination I've seen from breed-a-mole submittals and forum badgers -- the professional spammers are more likely to tolerate a bit of inconvenience. After all, to the spammers it would be only another 20 seconds of well-known rote drill, every day or so -- and to well-wishers it would be a slap-in-the-face "we don't trust you" first impression that is likely to keep them from considering a second impression.
Thanks, I'm no security expert myself.
Just thought that anything measure taken to discourage the 'professional spammers' (quite the oxymoron eh? (hehe)) only serves to make things easier on you and those folks who are genuinely interested in a contribution of substance- regardless of any alterior motives. (SEP etc.)
Of note: I will not hesitate to listen to the first 5 sec. of a telemarketers spiel only to put the phone down and then later, to hang it up when I'm sure they've realized that they are talking to a counter top. This way they waste their time instead of mine and I hopefully cut into their unsolicited dialing quota (there is only so much time in a day after all).
Doing the math it seems that 20sec of the spammers time, per spam attempt, may be a good thing to kill.. same principal. Though if its already been discussed...
Just thought that anything measure taken to discourage the 'professional spammers' (quite the oxymoron eh? (hehe)) only serves to make things easier on you and those folks who are genuinely interested in a contribution of substance- regardless of any alterior motives. (SEP etc.)
Of note: I will not hesitate to listen to the first 5 sec. of a telemarketers spiel only to put the phone down and then later, to hang it up when I'm sure they've realized that they are talking to a counter top. This way they waste their time instead of mine and I hopefully cut into their unsolicited dialing quota (there is only so much time in a day after all).
Doing the math it seems that 20sec of the spammers time, per spam attempt, may be a good thing to kill..
same principal. Though if its already been discussed...The technique that works best against professional spammers is opacity and unpredictability in detail. If they don't know what's happening to their spam, if they don't even know when they can expect to suspect it was spotted, if they don't pin us down up front about EXACTLY what percent of a site is outside advertising, then they don't know how to manipulate us next time around. If they don't know EXACTLY how many words of verbiage, how many millibits of actual information, then they can't reliably fire off one site and start loading the next round of their fifty-seven flavors of doorway spam. If even the technique of aiming to supply the second-worst site in the category results in a failure, then what's a poor spammer to do?
Eventually (and this will take a long time, because many of these weren't the brightest glowworms in the swamp to begin with, many are of the travelling-salesman mentality, congenitally disposed to regard persistence and luck and plausibility to an idiot higher than skill and knowledge and reputation anyway, and many are financially driven to desperation beyond the bounds of sanity) the word sinks in.
Spamming doesn't pay. Submit like you were intending to follow the rules, or don't submit at all. The ODP is dead: dead to your persuasions, your blandishments, your deceptions, your peremptory demands, your self-centered priorities, your greedy desires, your fatuous attempts at manipulation.
Meanwhile, the people that are trying to help (webmasters whose real purpose is building their website SINGULAR, not targeting the ODP for listings PLURAL) just go on about their business, building their site richer as their knowledge and experience grows, confident that sooner or later people will notice sites that reflect personal authoritative knowledge.
Eventually (and this will take a long time, because many of these weren't the brightest glowworms in the swamp to begin with, many are of the travelling-salesman mentality, congenitally disposed to regard persistence and luck and plausibility to an idiot higher than skill and knowledge and reputation anyway, and many are financially driven to desperation beyond the bounds of sanity) the word sinks in.
Spamming doesn't pay. Submit like you were intending to follow the rules, or don't submit at all. The ODP is dead: dead to your persuasions, your blandishments, your deceptions, your peremptory demands, your self-centered priorities, your greedy desires, your fatuous attempts at manipulation.
Meanwhile, the people that are trying to help (webmasters whose real purpose is building their website SINGULAR, not targeting the ODP for listings PLURAL) just go on about their business, building their site richer as their knowledge and experience grows, confident that sooner or later people will notice sites that reflect personal authoritative knowledge.
spectregunner
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
- Messages
- 8,768
And in the spirit of everyone getting along, I just want to point out, Champj, that he probably wasn't talkling about you. At least we hope he was not talking about you.
No worries, man, but I can see on re-reading that might have been a concern.
Just in case and for the record -- no, champj, I definitely know nothing about your submittals, have no reason to believe that you are part of the problem, and FWIW rather tend (from the fact that you asked an intelligent question and didn't impugn anyone's integrity in the process) to assume otherwise.
But even if that were not so: if I ever review any of your submittals, I'll have forgotten this conversation anyway -- so there'd be no prejudice one way or another.
Just in case and for the record -- no, champj, I definitely know nothing about your submittals, have no reason to believe that you are part of the problem, and FWIW rather tend (from the fact that you asked an intelligent question and didn't impugn anyone's integrity in the process) to assume otherwise.
But even if that were not so: if I ever review any of your submittals, I'll have forgotten this conversation anyway -- so there'd be no prejudice one way or another.
No, not at all. The context was quite clear. I understood it wasn't directed at me personally.
That's one of the best impartial statements one's likey to hear and very much appreciated even though I'm confident there is nothing to worry about on my side.