Royal Back of Canada Phish coming from Google Gmail

[The Doctor]

THE RBC has a right to sue Gmail out of existence.

[Randolf Richardson 張文道]

On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 00:57:12 -0000 (UTC)

Post by The Doctor
THE RBC has a right to sue Gmail out of existence.

I think it far more likely that to prevent such litigation
Google would ultimately just provide a list of the IP
addresses that sent the Phish eMails in question, then
leave it up to Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) to focuse their
legal action there.

Or is there something I'm missing here? Do you think an
eMail provider such as Google GMail should be held
responsible for the actions of their users? Perhaps the
problem is that user accounts of scammers are not being
shut down? (If so, then I wonder if perhaps that could
make them liable as ongoing facilitators.)

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Randolf Richardson 張文道
Or is there something I'm missing here? Do you think an
eMail provider such as Google GMail should be held
responsible for the actions of their users? Perhaps the
problem is that user accounts of scammers are not being
shut down? (If so, then I wonder if perhaps that could
make them liable as ongoing facilitators.)

It is expected that any provider would make basic attempts to prevent
spam. That includes shutting down the accounts of users who have
engendered spam complaints, as well as throttling email or shutting
down accounts when obvious spam signatures are found. If someone is
sending thousands of messages a day to consecutive addresses, it is
worth investigating them to see if they are spamming.

gmail actually does an okay job of this but a lot of them fall through
the cracks just because of the number of users they have. And Google
Groups, although it no longer can be used to spam Usenet, can be set up
with distribution mailing lists to send spam and Google completely
ignores those.
--scott

Post by Randolf Richardson 張文道
--
Inter-Corporate Computer & Network Services, Inc.
Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
https://www.inter-corporate.com/

[Randolf Richardson 張文道]

On 9 Dec 2024 23:17:49 -0000

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Randolf Richardson 張文道
Or is there something I'm missing here? Do you think an
eMail provider such as Google GMail should be held
responsible for the actions of their users? Perhaps the
problem is that user accounts of scammers are not being
shut down? (If so, then I wonder if perhaps that could
make them liable as ongoing facilitators.)

It is expected that any provider would make basic attempts to prevent
spam. That includes shutting down the accounts of users who have
engendered spam complaints, as well as throttling email or shutting
down accounts when obvious spam signatures are found. If someone is
sending thousands of messages a day to consecutive addresses, it is
worth investigating them to see if they are spamming.

I believe that this is a reasonable expectation. It's a problem
when the internet provider is also the spammer, but I don't have
any reason to suspect that Google is in the spam business -- at
their stature I suspect that they wouldn't even want to risk it.

Post by Scott Dorsey
gmail actually does an okay job of this but a lot of them fall through
the cracks just because of the number of users they have. And Google
Groups, although it no longer can be used to spam Usenet, can be set up
with distribution mailing lists to send spam and Google completely
ignores those.

More users typically also means more variety, so this makes sense.

I was disappointed when Google shutdown their Usenet connection,
because it meant that fewer people would be using it. I think
they wanted to divorce themselves of the headache though, and I
don't blame them for this because the vast majority of postings I
see in the more popular newsgroups are spam and/or hostile trolls.
who've essentially ruined the technology for most people.

NNTP does need updating, of course, but most people have moved on
to web-baseed forums and social media instead, which all seem to
have the same problems with spammers, scammers, and angry trolls,
so it's clearly more of a social problem than a technical one.

[D]

On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 15:17:40 -0800, Randolf Richardson ??? <***@inter-corporate.com> wrote:
snip

Post by Randolf Richardson 張文道
I believe that this is a reasonable expectation. It's a problem
when the internet provider is also the spammer, but I don't have
any reason to suspect that Google is in the spam business

if the broader definition of "spam" were to include both commercial and
non-commercial forms of advertising, off-topic and oft-crossposted junk,
troll-farm sockpuppetry, crowding, flooding, ad nauseam, then google is
the most successful server in history by virtue of the unrivaled volume
of articles injected into the usenet newsgroup forums... but apart from
the mass numbers involved, literally billions and billions and billions
(reminiscent of carl sagan talking about the number of suns in galaxies)
google wasn't doing anything much worse than what all other servers are
doing as a matter of routine ... google only did a whole lot more of it

[The Doctor]

Post by D
On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 15:17:40 -0800, Randolf Richardson ???
snip

Post by Randolf Richardson 張文道
I believe that this is a reasonable expectation. It's a problem
when the internet provider is also the spammer, but I don't have
any reason to suspect that Google is in the spam business

if the broader definition of "spam" were to include both commercial and
non-commercial forms of advertising, off-topic and oft-crossposted junk,
troll-farm sockpuppetry, crowding, flooding, ad nauseam, then google is
the most successful server in history by virtue of the unrivaled volume
of articles injected into the usenet newsgroup forums... but apart from
the mass numbers involved, literally billions and billions and billions
(reminiscent of carl sagan talking about the number of suns in galaxies)
google wasn't doing anything much worse than what all other servers are
doing as a matter of routine ... google only did a whole lot more of it

And M$!!

[Sam]

Post by Randolf Richardson 張文道
I was disappointed when Google shutdown their Usenet connection,
because it meant that fewer people would be using it. I think
they wanted to divorce themselves of the headache though, and I
don't blame them for this because the vast majority of postings I
see in the more popular newsgroups are spam and/or hostile trolls.
who've essentially ruined the technology for most people.

I don't think its spam and trolls that doomed Usenet. Everyone knows exactly
when spam started on Usenet, and it was way long before Usenet's doom spiral
in the 21st century. And trolling has been an art form long before spam came
along.

The reason for Usenet's death spiral is that it was marginally more
cumbersome and difficult to participate in Usenet than it was to click a
URL. Also, a lot of Usenet's engagement was a side effect of alt.binaries. A
lot came for the pr0n and warez, and then also took a look at other things
while they were there. This worked until more efficient means of
distributing pr0n and warez became popular. That, and the developing
idiocracy is what doomed Usenet.

[D]

On Wed, 01 Jan 2025 07:56:43 -0500, Sam <***@email-scan.com> wrote:
snip

Post by Sam
I don't think its spam and trolls that doomed Usenet.

usenet started 45 years ago and remains active, but because most newsgroups
are unmoderated, insiders that prefer moderation have never accepted usenet
as a viable alternative to their collective "nanny state" comfort zone, and
old-fashioned plain text must seem very outdated to the modern day in-crowd
with their noses glued to their phones . . . so to them, usenet never "died"
because it never lived to begin with, at least not in their jetsetter lives

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Sam
The reason for Usenet's death spiral is that it was marginally more
cumbersome and difficult to participate in Usenet than it was to click a
URL. Also, a lot of Usenet's engagement was a side effect of alt.binaries. A
lot came for the pr0n and warez, and then also took a look at other things
while they were there. This worked until more efficient means of
distributing pr0n and warez became popular. That, and the developing
idiocracy is what doomed Usenet.

I think that really has little to do with it, I think it is entirely the
result of the developing idiocracy.

Back in the eighties I thought it would be absolutely wonderful if the
net could be extended to everyone in the world. Usenet gives people a
voice... but the problem is that most people don't have anything to say
and yet they say it anyway. Once the floodgates were open, the people
who DID have something to say mostly left.

And THEN of course there was this huge backlash started by Cyrus Vance, Jr.
who saw attacking it as a political tool. That pretty much put it to bed.
--scott

[tjoen]

On 1/20/25 4:59 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
..

Post by Scott Dorsey
And THEN of course there was this huge backlash started by Cyrus Vance, Jr.
who saw attacking it as a political tool. That pretty much put it to bed.

Unknown this side of the ocean.
Also not mentioned on his Wikipedia article

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by tjoen
..

Post by Scott Dorsey
And THEN of course there was this huge backlash started by Cyrus Vance, Jr.
who saw attacking it as a political tool. That pretty much put it to bed.

Unknown this side of the ocean.
Also not mentioned on his Wikipedia article

I'm surprised it wasn't known there because it was such a huge deal on
Usenet at the time.... so many people lost Usenet access when almost all
of the major American ISPs dropped their Usenet service at once.
--scott

[tjoen]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by tjoen
..

Post by Scott Dorsey
And THEN of course there was this huge backlash started by Cyrus Vance, Jr.
who saw attacking it as a political tool. That pretty much put it to bed.

Unknown this side of the ocean.
Also not mentioned on his Wikipedia article

I'm surprised it wasn't known there because it was such a huge deal on
Usenet at the time.... so many people lost Usenet access when almost all
of the major American ISPs dropped their Usenet service at once.

Wikipedia Usenet article doesn't mention it either.
Only mentions decline. linux advocacy group looks lively

[Post To Usenet]

Post by The Doctor
THE RBC has a right to sue Gmail out of existence.

You would think that both Microsoft and Google would be willing
to provide IP lists for accounts responsible for the phishing attempt.

I am getting a Paypal phishing attempt for the past 2 days
to click on a link to send money to some one saying it is an
unpaid invoice etc. Just another scam.


I hope Paypal sues Microsoft out of existence too.

In the past 2 days I have gotten about 3 to 4 of these
scam emails now.

Different IPs all Microsoft (outlook.com)

104.47.110.44
(mail-tyzapc01lp2044.outbound.protection.outlook.com)

104.47.110.43
(mail-tyzapc01lp2043.outbound.protection.outlook.com)

40.93.138.74
(mail-koreacentralazlp17013074.outbound.protection.outlook.com)

I find the last one the most interesting spam emails on microsoft
servers coming out of Korea.

[tjoen]

Post by Post To Usenet

Post by The Doctor
THE RBC has a right to sue Gmail out of existence.

You would think that both Microsoft and Google would be willing
to provide IP lists for accounts responsible for the phishing attempt.

Problem was often the Internet Cafes.
I received the same spam from different accounts.
All reported to Gmail.
The spamming ended either by spammer giving up
or that Gmail quarantained bulk email

[Randolf Richardson 張文道]

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 07:57:52 +0100

Post by tjoen

Post by Post To Usenet

Post by The Doctor
THE RBC has a right to sue Gmail out of existence.

You would think that both Microsoft and Google would be willing
to provide IP lists for accounts responsible for the phishing attempt.

Problem was often the Internet Cafes.
I received the same spam from different accounts.
All reported to Gmail.
The spamming ended either by spammer giving up
or that Gmail quarantained bulk email

Insecure wireless networks are another source that spammers and
other such miscreants rely on. In particular, restaurants and
plenty of retail shops tend to use their phone number for the
WiFi password so their customers can easily figure out how to
get connected while enjoying a meal, shopping, lining up to pay
for goods and services, etc.

If the abuse continues to get worse, I suspect that this avenue
will also begin to close up, but it probably won't be soon
enough since a lot of people are willing to sacrifice security
for convenience (this, and the fact that staff busy serving
food, etc., don't have the time nor the interest in providing
technical support).

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Randolf Richardson 張文道
Insecure wireless networks are another source that spammers and
other such miscreants rely on. In particular, restaurants and
plenty of retail shops tend to use their phone number for the
WiFi password so their customers can easily figure out how to
get connected while enjoying a meal, shopping, lining up to pay
for goods and services, etc.

This is fine. Because all of those networks should be blocking port 25.
Yes, you can use them to connect up to gmail over the web, but that's
about it. This puts the responsibility on gmail.
--scott

[tjoen]

Post by Scott Dorsey
Yes, you can use them to connect up to gmail over the web, but that's
about it. This puts the responsibility on gmail.

Once reporting to https://support.google.com/mail/contact/abuse
and never spam again from that account

Post by Scott Dorsey
--scott