Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NYTimes: Tangled Up in Spam

Posted by michael on from the spam-musubi-is-good dept.

ezekieldas writes "Congratulations to the SpamAssassin developers and community! There's a mention of SA in the NYTMag as "one of the best tools for network administrators..." in an extensive article entitled Tangled Up in Spam. The article is quite substantial and the author, James Gleick, is more technically educated than what we've come to expect from the big press. Central to the story is the complexity in dealing with spam effectively in both technical and legal terms and the confusion it brings upon the neophyte. The conclusion drawn may be oversimplified but nonetheless pragmatic: 1) forged headers should be illegal 2) a specific header entry should identify the email as unsolicited."

29 of 394 comments (clear)

  1. Kudos to SA. by clueless123 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I been using Spam assassin for a while now, it is sad to say, but email would be almost unusable with out it.

    1. Re:Kudos to SA. by domninus.DDR · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ive tested something similar to this. Make a hotmail account with jibberish (rand(), 8 char isalnum() strings is what I used) for the name and see how long it takes to get spam. Out of ten tries my average was about 3 days.

    2. Re:Kudos to SA. by bubblegoose · · Score: 5, Funny

      I felt the same way you did until about 6 months ago. I went two years without Spam. Then a coworker thought he would fill out one of those forms on a web page to have the site send me a link to the page. You know the "send link to a friend" that shows up on some pages. Some joke site I think.

      From that point on the crap has hitting my mailbox, about 10 per day.

      I still haven't figured out how to thank him for that damn link that started it all.

      --
      I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people. - Jack Handey
    3. Re:Kudos to SA. by jesser · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The (obvious) reason for this is that I never use these addresses "in public" (web forms, online buying, etc.), for that I have my spam-collector, the Hotmail account, which do recieve a lot of these messages.

      One of the major costs of spam is that people are afraid to make their addresses available, making it much harder to contact people. I think it's sad that many geeks have become so used to spam that they think anyone who posts their e-mail address on a web page is stupid. Some geeks even go as far as to blame friends for spam they get when a friend isn't as careful with the geek's address.

      --
      The shareholder is always right.
    4. Re:Kudos to SA. by jafiwam · · Score: 4, Informative

      Heh. I assume you are honestly asking and not bragging about how little SPAM you get to make me jealous...

      Here are the vectors for getting on lists that I know of;

      - using a valid email address in newsgroups
      - using a valid email address on a web page
      - using a valid email address in form properties in a web page
      - using a valid email address on a mailing list or web-forum
      - using a valid email address for domain registration contacts
      - using a valid email address to sign a web page up for a search spider
      - having an email address that can be "brute forced" (i.e. almost all of them)
      - your pal puts an email address in an "e-vite" or "e-greeting"
      - getting a virus that spreads via email

      And above all, being naive about the workings of the Internet, when only a few weeks of ignorance will permenently get the address out there "in the wild". Just about everybody is this at one at one time or another.

      Some people cannot avoid having email addresses hung out there on the Internet, so getting on the lists is more or less inevitable if you are doing business or communicating on the Internet in any meaningful way. Since I cannot ignore what comes in the boxes I run, I MUST sort through whatever arrives. That makes SPAM a big issue for me.

      Your usage of your email addresses is probably typical (not on web pages and so on..) but you are probably fortunate to both be clueful about it and not dealing with your email address publicly available out of necessity.

    5. Re:Kudos to SA. by qengho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      send link to a friend

      A couple of months ago I got fed up with the ridiculous amount of spam I was getting at my primary address. I sent a note to the people I give a crap about, telling them that my primary address would henceforth be a new account I had created in my own domain.

      I explicitly begged them not to give the new address to "those stupid send this cool page to a friend" sites. Set up filters in my email client to segregate the old address, and so far, so good, although my Mom gave the new address to an e-greeting card site. Fortunately, the site in question doesn't harvest addresses, and I (respectfully but frantically) pointed out to her that e-cards fall into the "stupid" category, and told her how to make up a disposable address for greeting cards, using my domain name.

      Having to go to these lengths to to keep my inbox clear of spam makes me homicidal.

    6. Re:Kudos to SA. by cicho · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The parent is not "insightful" - it's shallow. If you're going to be so protective of your email address, you might as well ditch it altogether.

      I work as a freelancer. My website hosts my CV, as do several online databases, where companies go to look for people of my profession. The CV of course includes not one, but several of my email addresses, because, in the long run, this translates directly into payable work.

      I write software for fun (not profit). I even do email support, so my email address is again right there in plain html, and displayed by every software archive site I've ever uploaded my stuff to.

      But this is the point of having an email address in the first place, isn't it? I could be as protective of it as the parent suggests, except by doing so I would lose much more than I am losing now (in terms of time and net-related costs). But to me, it's not only a matter of give and take: I refuse, on principle, to obfuscate my email address; I refuse to give in to spammers. When people start to hide their email contact information en masse, then spammers have won and email has become usleess.

      --
      "Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
  2. At last by Mourgos · · Score: 5, Interesting

    now that it has been advertised in NYTmag, more people will become aware that spam is something they can actually stop. Can't wait for the new tricks spammers will use to disable anti-spam programs.

    1. Re:At last by qengho · · Score: 4, Informative

      Can't wait for the new tricks spammers will use to disable anti-spam programs.

      Wait no more. I got a spam today that purported to be an apology for how the sender got my address, something like "so sorry, but these stupid porn sites like [link] must have sent me a virus. I can't believe my kids are visiting sites like [another link] even though I never go to sites like [yet another link], blah blah blah."

      I have to admire the creativity of spammers even as I wish for Bad Things to happen to them.

  3. Illegal? by waytoomuchcoffee · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The conclusion drawn may be oversimplified but nonetheless pragmatic: 1) forged headers should be illegal 2) a specific header entry should identify the email as unsolicited

    Why does everyone in the USA assume that everyone else in the world will somehow obey US law when it is made "illegal"?

    1. Re:Illegal? by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Why does everyone in the USA assume that everyone else in the world will somehow obey US law when it is made "illegal"?

      Because the vast majority of spam is sent by Americans, advertising products sold by other Americans and hoping to sell them to still more Americans. The fact that the spam is sent via open relays in Korea or bulletproof accounts in China, and received in Europe or Australia, is neither here nor there. Ralsky, for instance, lives in America, regardless of where the spam is routed; indeed, _his_ location is very well known nowadays ;-)

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  4. MIT's Post Servers... by g_arumilli · · Score: 5, Interesting

    now use SpamAssassin. Basically, a set of new headers is attached to the e-mail of the form X-Spam-foo, and if X-Spam-Score is 7.5 or greater (on a scale of 10 I believe), then X-Spam-Flag is yes. It's really useful for sorting out spam quickly, and I haven't gotten a false positive yet...It doesn't get all of the spam, but it gets the vast majority of it...

    1. Re:MIT's Post Servers... by jdreed1024 · · Score: 4, Informative
      now use SpamAssassin. Basically, a set of new headers is attached to the e-mail of the form X-Spam-foo, and if X-Spam-Score is 7.5 or greater (on a scale of 10 I believe), then X-Spam-Flag is yes. It's really useful for sorting out spam quickly, and I haven't gotten a false positive yet...It doesn't get all of the spam, but it gets the vast majority of it...

      Some more clarification:
      -it's not on a scale of 10 - the SA score can go as high as necessary. I got 27 the other day. Your threshold will be configurable (sometime next week) to "high" (3.0), "normal" (7.5), or "low" (12.0), or a custom number. You'll also have custom whitelists and blacklists.

      --
      There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
  5. Always with the legislation... by Sheetrock · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Spam is a technical problem, so why can't we come up with a technical solution? For example, it should be impossible to forge headers, not illegal. Why rely on a legal solution from many of the people who have brought us such brilliant solutions as the DMCA and the CDA in the past when all that's required is what our community has always been good at: sitting down and thinking things out?

    --

    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




    1. Re:Always with the legislation... by TGK · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'd say the best technical solution I've seen to breaking the SPAM system is the use of the internets distributed nature against the spammer.

      Consider the following. We all access the internet from a fixed and typicaly small number of physical and virtual locations. Were we to map the internet as a whole, starting from any given location the map would look like an expanding cone.

      In short, almost all of the traffic from a given point flows through a very small number of servers and routers at some point close to the source.

      Since spam messages are sent by the millions and it is fairly easy to determine what messages are likely to BE spam why not set up a filtering system on the routers that determines the rough content of a message based on both its Spam Precentage and the number of identical messages sent.

      I.E. If the router sees 500,000 messages of nearly identical content with a 89% spam rating it blocks all of them. If it sees 44 messages with a 23% spam content it lets them through.

      Thoughts anyone? I'm sure this idea has gaping flaws in it... what would have to be chnaged for it to work? What are the critical flaws? Is this a viable model or am I missing something major?

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    2. Re:Always with the legislation... by KjetilK · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Spam is a technical problem,

      No, it is not. It is a social and economic problem.

      1. Spammers do not have the social intelligence to see that what they are doing is destructive.
      2. Spammers, at least some of them, are making money.

      That's why you can't come up with a technical solution, because it isn't a technical problem.

      Making it impossible to forge headers is not going to solve any of the problems above. It will only make it easier to report spam to ISPs, but it will not pressure them more to whack the spammers.

      You can take technical measures to shift the cost onto the spammer, but if you do that, you must consider the side-effects.

      Frankly, I think laws are the solution. But given clueless legislators, we have to write the law.

      --
      Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
  6. Interesting free speech point by jenkin+sear · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Towards the end of the article, Gleick makes a really interesting point- he says that as commercial speech, spam isn't entitled to any particular first amendment protection:


    The Supreme Court has made clear that individuals may preserve a threshold of privacy. ''Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit,'' wrote Chief Justice Warren Burger in a 1970 decision. ''We therefore categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another.''


    Looks like we have the supremes on our side; if we could just congress to issue some letters of marque and reprisal on the spamhausen, we'd be getting somewhere...
    --
    What a strange bird is the pelican, his beak can hold more than his belly can.
  7. Techical Solutions Are Required by esme · · Score: 4, Interesting
    As much as I'd like to see spammers prosecuted for fraud (and think making various deceptive tactics illegal is a good short-term approach), legal and social approaches are doomed to failure. The number of people you can spam is so vast, that even if only one in a million takes the bait, it's still profitable -- that's a powerful economic imbalance that you don't find anywhere else. And it's going to make people forge headers, spam from overseas, etc. to get around any legal and social roadblocks.

    I think that breaking that economic model -- ending the reciever-pays system for email -- is the only way to fix spam. If you had to pay some amount of money -- event 1 cent -- for each message that is delivered, spam would stop being economical. And that's the only thing that's going to make it stop.

    -Esme

  8. evolution users by asv108 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The one big feature missing for me in evolution is a spam filter. Fortunately, spamassassin works great even if you have to run it locally. Here are some instructions for evolution users who need to run it locally or are lucky enough to have spamassassin installed on their mail server.

  9. Re:SpamAssasin in large corporate use? by Webratta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't work for a large corporation, but a state-wide ISP. I asked my boss, the chief technical officer of the company, why we weren't using Spam Assassin. He replied that while it is a very neat program and does a great job of filtering spam, the performance just isn't quite there yet. He's of the mindset that it needs some tweaking still before it can be a competitor to commercial products like what Brightmail offers.

    Personally, I'd like to see more companies using SpamAssassin just to prove that it can stack up against other products, because I think it can work well if it's configured properly and you use spamd. I use it on my mail server at home and at last check it catches 98.2% of all spam message sent to my machine, and I haven't had any false positives since I set up my whitelists.

    --
    Beef! Beef! Beef!
  10. Re:illegal by fmaxwell · · Score: 4, Informative

    illegal is great in theory, but there is no possible way to enforce that on a world wide basis.

    It's impossible to enforce almost any laws with 100% effectiveness, but that does mean that we should ignore the problem. If some sleazeball in Florida hires a firm in Korea to spam me, put his ass in jail.

    white lists are the only way to stop spam.

    I'm amazed by this user-hostile suggestion every time I hear it. Suppose you post your resumé on Monster.com. Who are you going to whitelist? Suppose your friend changes ISPs and then tries to e-mail you his new address? It won't be whitelisted, so it will bounce. Suppose to fill out a tech support request form. You don't know the address of the person that will contact you (or even if they will be the same domain as the web site).

  11. Another cool anti-spam tool by yiingineer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've been using Cloudmark's SpamNet for the past few months and it's been working quite well.

    The smart thing that SpamNet does, is that it relies on its users to determine if something is spam or not. If some email lands in your inbox and a few hundred SpamNet members have proclaimed it spam, it most likely is, and it gets immediatly filtered out. This has the net effect of a few user's needing to filter out a few message ocassionally, while the vast majority of messages are filtered out for all users. Although SpamAssassin seems quite good, it's still based upon filtering rules and spammers are constantly tweaking their emails to try to get around them. Since people are still better at determining what's spam and what's not, I find that its accuracy is generally better.

    SpamNet isn't perfect though, as far as I know, it only works with Outlook on Windows and doesn't have a Unix, Linux or Mac version. It also sometimes filters out valid bulk mailings, but overall, I would definitely recommend it.

  12. Go with POPFile. by TDScott · · Score: 4, Informative

    SpamAssassin's a great idea, but for the non-technically minded user, POPFile's the best choice. Bayesian filters, learning, kickass UI, and a Windows installer (and Perl for other platforms.)

  13. Re:NO NO NO - for a different reason by JonTurner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >>1) forged headers should be illegal 2) a specific header entry should identify the email as unsolicited

    Don't we ever learn from the past? We've all seen the unintended consequences of poorly-crafted legislation (e.g. DMCA), so why run to the shelter of more restrictions which, in the end, will only cause us more problems? Like the criminals trying to scam your mom with the Nigerian-hold-my-money-for-a-day scam are going to suddenly begin obeying the law... yeah, right. Which begs another question: what law, in what jurisdiction? Even if the US were to pass this law and ruthlessly enforce it (domestically), all scammers would simple flood us from offshore servers.

    The solution is not legislation, it is the creative use of technology. Build software that "learns" what is spam and what isn't, then evolves to keep up with the changing tactics of the spammers. Something like PopFile

  14. I rarely ever get spam. by cpaluc · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Heres how:
    1. Spend 10 bucks, buy a domain name (eg xyz.com).
    2. Set up a few email aliases to point to your real email. eg:

    joe@xyz.com ---> you@hotmail.com

    temp123@xyz.com ---> you@hotmail.com

    spam123@xyz.com ---> you@hotmail.com 3. Never give out 'joe@xyz.com' to anyone except friends/family.
    4. Use the other emails for signing up for things on the web or in usenet.
    5. When you get your first spam addressed to 'temporary21@xyz.com', delete the email address (no more spam from that source!).

    I find this method works extremely well. By using aliases in this way you effectively hide your real mailbox. Even if your hotmail account starts receiving spam you can just get a new one and point your aliases at it. Also, if you change ISP you don't need to change your email address.

    If you use it to forward to a hotmail account it might be better if the hotmail account name isn't a dictionary word or name (ie. use a random string for an account name that the 'bots won't guess.

    You're screwed if your 'trusted' address gets out there but if you're careful you'll at least get much more use out of it before needing to kill it.

    1. Re:I rarely ever get spam. by LocalH79 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Spamgourmet does exactly what you propose, and is much more effective.

  15. the Author's version of the article by gleick · · Score: 4, Informative

    For what it's worth, an ever-so-slightly longer version, lacking a few bits of Times editing, is posted here, at my own site. And may I say how helpful and fascinating the many Slashdot discussions of this subject have been?

  16. A new breed of email is on the horizon by mcrbids · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If we can pull it off.

    With Bind 9, we finally have a decent, working implementation of DNSSEC. This will allow for a new breed of secure, verified websites and email, and (Finally!) makes a RBL actually mean something.

    How's that you ask?

    Well, one of the biggest problems with SPAM is the forged header, open relay issue. It's a complicated issue, and one that doesn't have an obvious, "in your face" kind of answer.

    DNS is designed to tell you where to go, and SSL/Certs make sure that you got there. Why aren't they joined together? The fact that you are the DNS server for a domain makes it clear and obvious that you are an authoritative designator for where you are supposed to go - why have this wholy separate and dis-jointed SSL/Cert that can't even be made to work consistently?

    If an ISP can issue DNS-SEC certs with impunity, we might actually see a reason to have encrypted and ISP certified email.

    And suddenly, the ISP is back in charge again, able to validate every email going out as coming from one of it's customers. Revoke the cert and their email becomes unreadable.

    Now, we have an email system with a powerful mechanism built in that is:

    1) Standards compliant
    2) Easy to implement
    3) Clearly laid out
    4) Cheap
    5) secure
    6) private - using the ISP's cert to identify yourself doesn't mean that the ISP can read your email! (like they can now - the command is "mail -u _username_")

    What's not to argue with? The issue of locking down an open relay becomes a non-issue - an ISP could simply identify an "s-mail" server (secure mail) that will only relay for those holding a valid cert at that ISP.

    Roaming wouldn't be an issue, nor would open relays or forged headers.

    A brave new world? Yep. One I'd like to live in? Yep. One that's coming? We can only hope...

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  17. Re:I've gotten rid of 90% of spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    >URGENT ASSISTANCE - FROM USA
    >
    >IMMEDIATE ATTENTION NEEDED :
    >HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
    >
    >FROM: GEORGE WALKER BUSH
    >202.456.1414 / 202.456.1111
    >FAX: 202.456.2461
    >
    >DEAR SIR / MADAM,
    >
    >I AM GEORGE WALKER BUSH, SON OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
    >OF
    >AMERICA GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH, AND CURRENTLY SERVING AS PRESIDENT OF
    >THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS LETTER MIGHT SURPRISE YOU BECAUSE WE
    >HAVE NOT MET NEITHER IN PERSON NOR BY CORRESPONDENCE. I CAME TO KNOW OF YOU
    >IN MY SEARCH FOR A RELIABLE AND REPUTABLE PERSON TO HANDLE A VERY
    >CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS TRANSACTION, WHICH INVOLVES THE TRANSFER OF A HUGE
    >SUM
    >OF MONEY TO AN ACCOUNT REQUIRING MAXIMUM CONFIDENCE.
    >
    >I AM WRITING YOU IN ABSOLUTE CONFIDENCE PRIMARILY TO SEEK YOUR ASSISTANCE
    >IN
    >ACQUIRING OIL FUNDS THAT ARE PRESENTLY TRAPPED IN THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ. MY
    >PARTNERS AND I SOLICIT YOUR ASSISTANCE IN COMPLETING A TRANSACTION BEGUN BY
    >MY FATHER, WHO HAS LONG BEEN ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN THE EXTRACTION OF
    >PETROLEUM
    >IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND BRAVELY SERVED HIS COUNTRY AS DIRECTOR
    >OF THE UNITED STATES CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (CIA).
    >
    >IN THE DECADE OF THE NINETEEN-EIGHTIES, MY FATHER, THEN VICE-PRESIDENT OF
    >THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SOUGHT TO WORK WITH THE GOOD OFFICES OF THE
    >RESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ TO REGAIN LOST OIL REVENUE SOURCES IN THE
    >NEIGHBORING ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN. THIS UNSUCCESSFUL VENTURE WAS SOON
    >FOLLOWED BY A FALLING-OUT WITH HIS IRAQI PARTNER, WHO SOUGHT TO ACQUIRE
    >ADDITIONAL OIL REVENUE SOURCES IN THE NEIGHBORING EMIRATE OF KUWAIT, A
    >WHOLLY-OWNED U.S.-BRITISH SUBSIDIARY.
    >
    >MY FATHER RE-SECURED THE PETROLEUM ASSETS OF KUWAIT IN 1991 AT A COST OF
    >SIXTY-ONE BILLION U.S. DOLLARS ($61,000,000,000). OUT OF THAT COST,
    >THIRTY-SIX BILLION DOLLARS ($36,000,000,000) WERE SUPPLIED BY HIS PARTNERS
    >IN THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA AND OTHER PERSIAN GULF MONARCHIES, AND
    >SIXTEEN BILLION DOLLARS ($16,000,000,000) BY GERMAN AND JAPANESE PARTNERS.
    >BUT MY FATHER'S FORMER IRAQI BUSINESS PARTNER REMAINED IN CONTROL OF THE
    >REPUBLIC OF IRAQ AND ITS PETROLEUM
    >RESERVES.
    >
    >MY FAMILY IS CALLING FOR YOUR URGENT ASSISTANCE IN FUNDING THE REMOVAL OF
    >THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ AND ACQUIRING THE PETROLEUM ASSETS OF
    >HIS COUNTRY, AS COMPENSATION FOR THE COSTS OF REMOVING HIM FROM POWER.
    >UNFORTUNATELY, OUR PARTNERS FROM 1991 ARE NOT WILLING TO SHOULDER THE
    >BURDEN
    >OF THIS NEW VENTURE, WHICH IN ITS UPCOMING PHASE MAY COST THE SUM OF 100
    >BILLION TO 200 BILLION DOLLARS ($100,000,000,000 - $200,000,000,000), BOTH
    >IN THE INITIAL ACQUISITION AND IN LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT.
    >
    >WITHOUT THE FUNDS FROM OUR 1991 PARTNERS, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ACQUIRE
    >THE OIL REVENUE TRAPPED WITHIN IRAQ. THAT IS WHY MY FAMILY AND OUR
    >COLLEAGUES ARE URGENTLY SEEKING YOUR GRACIOUS ASSISTANCE. OUR
    >DISTINGUISHED
    >COLLEAGUES IN THIS BUSINESS TRANSACTION INCLUDE THE SITTING VICE-PRESIDENT
    >OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RICHARD CHENEY, WHO IS AN ORIGINAL PARTNER
    >IN THE IRAQ VENTURE AND FORMER HEAD OF THE HALLIBURTON OIL COMPANY, AND
    >CONDOLEEZA RICE, WHOSE PROFESSIONAL DEDICATION TO THE VENTURE WAS
    >DEMONSTRATED IN THE NAMING OF A CHEVRON OIL TANKER AFTER HER.
    >
    >I WOULD BESEECH YOU TO TRANSFER A SUM EQUALING TEN TO TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT
    >(10-25 %) OF YOUR YEARLY INCOME TO OUR ACCOUNT TO AID IN THIS IMPORTANT
    >VENTURE. THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL
    >FUNCTION AS OUR TRUSTED INTERMEDIARY. I PROPOSE THAT YOU MAKE THIS
    >TRANSFER
    >BEFORE THE FIFTEENTH (15TH) OF THE MONTH OF APRIL.
    >
    >I KNOW THAT A TRANSACTION OF THIS MAGNITUDE WOULD MAKE ANYONE APPREHENSIVE
    >AND WORRIED. BUT I AM ASSURING YOU THAT ALL WILL BE WELL AT THE END OF THE
    >DAY. A BOLD STEP TAKEN SHALL NOT BE REGRETTED, I ASSURE YOU. PLEASE DO BE
    >INFORMED THAT THIS BUSINESS TRANSACTION IS 100% LEGAL. IF YOU DO NOT WISH
    >TO CO-OPERATE IN THIS TRANSACTION, PLEASE CONTACT OUR INTERMEDIARY
    >REPRESENTATIVES TO FURTHER DISCUSS THE MATTER.
    >
    >I PRAY THAT YOU UNDERSTAND OUR PLIGHT. MY FAMILY AND OUR COLLEAGUES WILL
    >BE
    >FOREVER GRATEFUL. PLEASE REPLY IN STRICT CONFIDENCE TO THE CONTACT NUMBERS
    >BELOW.
    >
    >SINCERELY WITH WARM REGARDS,
    >
    >GEORGE WALKER BUSH