passionate spammers

[cellio]

My journal just received the anonymous spam that's been going around for Mel Gibson's new movie. The spammers are obviously doing some keyword-matching; the version I got was targetted at Jews. (I've seen this in other journals; particularly amusing was the case where the spammer tried to talk about a band he clearly knew nothing about.)

Here, isn't this quote special? "Some people, not really representative of Jewish people, but rather self appointed Jewish spokespeople, such as Abraham Foxman from the Anti-Defamation League, seem to have been attempting to denounce this film for months as being anti-Semitic. The news reported that they even stole the script last year! But here's what some Jews say (Jews who don't make it their job to tear apart other people): Protesting Gibson's Passion Lacks Moral Legitimacy by Rabbi Daniel Lapin." (There was a link here, but I'm not going to do this person's work for him after he barges into my journal and makes accuastions of theft...)

Yes, I know I can disable anonymous commenting, but that would block some legitimate readers of my journal and anyway, it's no real skin off my nose to mock the spammer and delete his comment.

Still, I welcome any insight any of y'all can offer on the traceroute output for our "friends" at 219.94.76.250:

traceroute to 219.94.76.250 (219.94.76.250), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 wwwnet3-gw.jtan.com (207.106.84.1) 1.28 ms 0.978 ms 1.181 ms
2 198.187.37.41 (198.187.37.41) 5.73 ms 7.767 ms 16.70 ms
3 phl10-core1-g2-0.atlas.algx.net (165.117.179.1) 28.533 ms 16.481 ms 34.76
ms
4 jfk11-core1-so-1-1-0.atlas.algx.net (165.117.192.177) 6.863 ms 7.11 ms 7
ms
5 jfk11-core10-pos6-0.atlas.algx.net (165.117.192.94) 6.901 ms 6.942 ms 10.
956 ms
6 so-3-1.core1.NewYork1.Level3.net (209.244.160.141) 8.976 ms 9.6 ms 8.844
ms
7 ae-0-52.bbr2.NewYork1.Level3.net (64.159.17.34) 8.798 ms 8.736 ms 9.44 ms
8 so-0-0-0.bbr1.SanJose1.Level3.net (64.159.1.133) 84.739 ms 85.117 ms 87.8
75 ms
9 ge-6-0.ipcolo2.SanJose1.Level3.net (64.159.2.4) 84.701 ms 86.949 ms 90.27
5 ms
10 TELEGLOBE.ipcolo2.Level3.net (63.210.199.6) 96.655 ms 89.558 ms 130.756 m
s
11 219.93.155.65 (219.93.155.65) 339.548 ms 348.23 ms 322 ms
12 219.93.174.65 (219.93.174.65) 338.835 ms 329.473 ms 329.233 ms
13 210.187.132.81 (210.187.132.81) 326.183 ms 332.383 ms 326.273 ms
14 brf-odsy01-srp1-0.tm.net.my (210.187.135.1) 326.529 ms 326.606 ms 328.557
ms
15 210.187.143.1 (210.187.143.1) 326.63 ms 411.91 ms 354.203 ms
16 219.93.218.202 (219.93.218.202) 342.474 ms 328.385 ms 330.733 ms
17 219.94.76.249 (219.94.76.249) 335.780 ms 336.445 ms 329.160 ms
18 219.94.76.250 (219.94.76.250) 329.34 ms 333.796 ms 404.392 ms


You know what? There was a time when I would have considered going to see this movie (in the theatre), because while I utterly disagree with the message, I can still appreciate well-told stories that I disagree with. (I don't know if this one is well-told, of course.) But with the way its supporters have been behaving for the last year (this sort of campaigning is only the latest step), no way. I'll see the movie someday, probably, if I don't conclude that the apparently-excessive violence wouldn't squick me and if I get past my aversion to "movies I have to read" (I don't do subtitles), but if I do, I will do it in a way that does not contribute to a "blockbuster". It'll show up on TV eventually, after all. Or someone in my circle of friends might lend a DVD.

Comments

[jeannegrrl.livejournal.com]

They got me too - wish I had thought to jot down their IP address before deleting their comment....

Re:

[cellio]

For all practical purposes, having the IP address probably doesn't do any good. It's probably a distributed attack, after all. But I figured I'd pop it into traceroute to see if any obvious channels of complaint suggested themselves.

(I'm betting that someone is using LJ's "most recent posts anywhere" interface to choose targets, because the spam showed up within a couple minutes of my post. I will find it particularly amusing if this post attracts that spam -- which would tell us that there's no human evaluation of post content involved. :-) )

[paquerette.livejournal.com]

I got it a few minutes after a post as well, to my cats' journal. I've also seen it on another cat journal, so they're definately not checking content. The IP on this one was 212.14.16.131 . DNS check puts it at a Polish university, I don't know how to do a traceroute.

[laurabee.livejournal.com]

I haven't gotten any, but Willie has gotten some. His theory is that they're using the "100 most recent posts" feature and spamming people that way. Which follows because I post almost nothing that's not "friends only", so they wouldn't see my posts.

[cellio]

That's my theory too, given that the spam generally seems to show up within a few minutes of the original posts. And, of course, they can't spam you if they can't see your entries, so you're pretty safe.

[geekosaur]

whois tells me your "friend"'s address is a "portable" (i.e. dialup or etc.) address allocated to TMNET/Telekom Malaysia Berhad. Your chances of finding out anything more are about zero. :/ Given the other sample (which whois links to a portable address in Poland) it probably is a distributed spam attack; not much different from distributed email spamming, when it comes down to it.

The fact that these people think this is a legitimate way to advertise speaks volumes about them. (In particular, it suggests that on some level they don't quite understand the disconnect between what they're selling, and what the thing they're selling means....)

Re:

[cellio]

The fact that these people think this is a legitimate way to advertise speaks volumes about them.

Yup. Of course, this sort of thing is a tactic that can sometimes be used by opponents of a product -- "we'll hype their product in an offensive way to turn people against it" -- but this particular spam campaign has that ring of semi-sincerity that suggests that the spammers are stupid assholes, not clever deceivers.

yep, me too.

[splodgenoodles.livejournal.com]

I got one too, right after I posted something. I assume they are sitting watching the LJ homepage - which shows new posts - and randomly attaching replies.

Mine said that the sender liked christian rock music. I am a little upset by the inference that "christian rock music" would somehow appeal to me, and am now seeking emergency help.... :D

I deleted it straight away and disabled my anonymous posting.
[not that I ever got anon. posts anyway]

It was such an invasion of my personal space, that I am now most definitely NOT seeing the film- no one sticks ads in my diary!!

[tashabear.livejournal.com]

I've heard that the links in the spam don't point to anything particularly religious -- I tend to believe that truly Christian spammers would shy away from linking to sites that sell Jesus-shaped sex toys, for example. (I did not click on them myself, but someone on my friends list did, and shared what was found.) It's a weird one...

[figmo.livejournal.com]

I managed to escape that spam.

OTOH, I'm not likely to go see the movie, but the "message" has little to nothing to do with the factor.

I go to movies to be entertained. A movie with lots of violence, gore, sex, and little humor is not entertaining, IMHO. Even LotR has humor in it to balance out the violence and gore.

Re:

[cellio]

I go to movies primarily to be entertained, of course, but there are circumstances under which I'll see a movie because it's important to see it, even if it won't entertain me. Examples from my past that immediately come to mind are Schindler's List and Genocide. I know there've been a few others.

There have also been some treatments of the Jesus story that I have enjoyed, Jesus Christ Superstar chief among them. (Granted, that might be in part because I've always seen Judas as portrayed in that show as a sympathetic character. But that's a small part; the play works because we see real conflict that does not boil down to "well he's just evil" the way it does in some tellings of that story.)

[psu-jedi.livejournal.com]

Huh. I'm torn on this one...I don't want to criticize a film I haven't seen, but I don't want to pay money to see a film if there's a chance I might fundamentally disagree with it.

That said, this might be the only exception to my "never buy bootlegged movies" rule.

[cellio]

I have now spoken with someone who saw it yesterday, and the report is that it is extremely violent. So if you squick easily, consider that. The person I spoke with compared it, unfavorably, to the original release of A Clowkwork Orange.