Slashdot Mirror
NYTimes: Tangled Up in Spam
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."
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.
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"?
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...
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.
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.
>>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
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.
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
>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
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