Slashdot Mirror
AOL Cans 1 billion Spams In One Day
linuxwrangler writes "AOL announced today that its spam filters hit the 1 billion reject mark for a 24 hour period. This is an average of 28 rejects per day per member. In addition, AOL spam engineers say they receive 5.5 million spam submissions each day from AOL users. Other reports here(1) and here(2)."
28 per subcriber per day caught.
Only leaves 103 apeice...
TODO: Something witty here...
And how many got through?
Well, maybe they are, but that's not what's reported in the article.
AOL users are reporting 5.5 million spam messages a day to customer service.
In the AOL "Mail Center" there is an option to "Allow ALL mail". I take it this doesn't work, or that AOL should change it to "Allow all mail that we decide to let through..." ?
If this is true, can you imagine how much bandwidth and disk space is wasted by spam. I'd be willing to bet that the money lost to spam exceeds the money lost to pirate software and mp3's combined.
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
No, we have not. Spam is the #1 complaint we get from our users. They don't want the stuff, so we're fighting it. We block what they ask us to block.
But, of course, we're AOL and this is Slashdot, so naturally everything we do is wrong.
-BK
Chemical Blog
I'm kind of torn on this issue. On the one hand, I hate spam and those who allow it to proliferate. On the other hand, I abhor censorship in any form. I wouldn't have an issue with this at all if AOL simply provided its users with the *tools* to eliminate their own spam if they choose to do so. My problem with this is that AOL itself is deciding to filter its members' email, and making the determination itself as to what is and is not "spam". That's a reckless step down a slippery slope, in my opinion.
I would guess that deleting spam is about as expensive as transmitting it for an ISP. that is the processor intensive task of scoring and removing a spam probably is a wash with the processor light task of tranmitting and storing it. Now for the sake of argument lets just guess a wild number for the cost of filtering or passing along a spam. lets say 0.001 dollars.
if that were true then a billion spam deleted would cost AOL 1million dollars per day (plus the ones that got through). that would be a third of a billion dollars a year. THat seems way to high. So it must be less. SO maybe its 0.000001 cents?? that would come to a third of a million dollars a year.
My guess is that the latter is probably a good guess. why? well how many engineers has AOL assigned to the de spamination? perhaps a third of a million dollars worth every year? it would of course not make sense to spend more on de spamination than the harm it costs.
so anyhow assuming this wild guessing is within an order of magnitude then the proper charge to fine a spammer would be some multiple of 0.000001 dollars per spam sent. which is not an awful lot.
so is spam really that costly to ISPs??? Maybe not
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Apparently AOL users can set up their accounts to reject ALL email originating outside AOL (as if the rest of the internet were worse SPAMmers than AOL folks). Amazingly, this setting is turned on on some accounts (many, I suspect) without them even knowing it. I run a webserver for a few businesses, and we get LOTS of mail bounced back from AOL account for this reason. It's a real pain when, for example, an AOL customer is trying to sign up on our site, and their account activation key gets bounced back to us because of this stupid setting. I bet they're counting all these messages in their total.
Convert RSS to HTML - integrate webfeeds into your website
I remember some survey from years ago that asked "if you could press a button and someone on the other side of the World would die, but you'd recieve 1,000,000 dollars, would you do it?". I'm now wondering, if you could press a button, and a spammer, somewhere would die - would YOU do it? Scary as it seems to me, I'd probably say "yes"...
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
Having all email routed to my inbox means that my figures above include dictionary attacks.
Using tagged addresses also runs up the total a lot. Every time I give out my email address, either on a registration form or in a public posting, I use a different tag.
I started tagging addresses in the early days of spam. Remember when we foolishly thought we could attach a disclaimer to usenet posts along the lines of "send me spam, and I'll bill you $50 under the anti-fax laws"? Well, I was dumb. I figured that in order to "prove" that unsolicited email was unsolicited, I had to have some proof of how the spammer got my email address, and that I had a clear disclaimer.
The good news: I have a pretty good idea of which of my online activities generate spam (e.g., posts to control.cancel and *.test, my NIC registrations, and usenet group-creation votes all seem to be popular for the spam-database trollers)
The bad news: I can easily get hit 30, 40, or 50 times for any one mass-spewing a spammer decides to do.
The totals above contain NO false positives -- they're all tied to tagged addresses which only produce spam. Not included are the 50 or so false negatives I get a day, which get tackled through other means.
Spam became a huge problem here roughly a year ago, and it started taking up too much employee time. So roughly six months ago, we started using Spam Assassin. In that six months, Spam assassin has caught roughly 90% of the spam we get, totalling well over 500,000 spam mails.
Am I crazy, or is 1/2 million spams for only 7 people in less than six months absolutely insane or what? How can anyone argue that these spammers are running legitamite businesses?
I think it's high-time for some legis-fuckin-lation to curb this insanity :)
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden