Slashdot Mirror
Forty Percent of All Email is Spam
PCOL writes "There's an interesting article on spam in today's Washington Post which includes an inside look at AOL's spam control center in Northern Virginia. The story reports that roughly 40 percent of all e-mail traffic in the US is now spam, up from 8 percent in late 2001 and nearly doubling in the past six months; that AOL's spam filters now block 1 billion messages a day; and that spam will cost U.S. organizations more than $10 billion this year from lost productivity and the equipment, software and manpower needed to combat the problem."
90% of my email is spam
I wondder how accurate the AOL spam filter is. If some people are accidentaly getting their emails blocked or others not getting emails delivered. Does anyone know on which principal the AOL filter works. Is it just a bunch of email addresses known to be spammers or is it some kind of guessing filter that has certain words and phrases coined as spam.
I think this is a bit optimistic. I get 300 peices of email a day, and I'm lucky if more then 50 are legitimate mail.
01101001 01100001 01101101 01101110 01101111 01110100 01100001 01101100 01100001 01110111 01111001 01100101 01110010
I'd say more like 60% though. However, i'd also say that 40% of idiots make up statistics to prove their point, and 90% of people know that.
Anyway, I get about 1800 messages a day, total. Messages are ran through procmail and a complex spam filtering perl script that I wrote for myself. about 600-700 messages are blocked per day, therefore being more than 40%.
I'd also state that most SMB popups are SPAM.
Yeah right. Just like the new telemarketing bill that has loopholes for some of the worst telemarketers.
The srticle states that 40% of Internet traffic is Spam. And where does this statistic comec from? From Brightmail...a vendor of anti-spam software. Remember...liars, damn liars, and statisticians
Always value the individual over the system. --Bruce Lee "I don't need a Sig - I have a custom 191" - me
Aside from the AOL spam control center, most of the spam prevention discussed in this email is aimed at trying to stop the sender through legislation and black lists. Legislation will never work, and black lists are marginal.
The answer to this shortcoming in the current email infrastructure is redesigning email protocols to allow spam to be stopped as it is sent.
I don't have the answer, but something that forces the sender to verify that the recipient will accept the message before it is relayed will be a start. I also like the idea that came from Microsoft recently of forcing the sender to pay the recipient a small amount of money.
The problem with bayesian filters is that they filter too much spam. The more people that use bayesian filters, the more messages the spammers will have to send to get through. Because it is almost free to send messages, they will continue to increase the number of messages they send until it gets to a point that email infrastructure can't handle it anymore.
Citing "Freedom of speach", the first ammendment, etc, there still seems to be an ignorant crowd that thinks that we shouldn't have any legal means to curb spam. They still think technology can solve a social problem. As ISPs put increasingly invasive filters on email servers, legit email gets lost. When 99% of all email is spam, will you STILL think it's ok? When ISP's raise your internet fees due to spam, will you still defend its legality? When you are on the road paying $.50 / minute downloading spam for half an hour, even though your local filter blocks it from your view will you still be happy?
There are people who want to re-invent the email protocol to solve the problem. Yeah, doing something technological can help the FUTURE, but what are we going to do for the 5 years it takes to develop, implement, and deploy this new technology?
Think about it.
Kind of funny when a post that attacks someone for "fear" includes a bit of anti-semitism midway through it.
"Propaganda's m'friend But I calls it "fact""
Propaganda is in fact typically a meaningless term. Quite often what is labelled "propaganda" is factual, but it is labelled "propaganda" for the sole reason that the opponent does not agree with the facts presented and would rather see them censored or otherwise dismissed.
that the biggest purveyor of filling my postal mail box with crap that I haven't signed up for or asked for (ie: cd's and cd holders that are worthless), is now fighting spam. Give me a break! How about they stop mailing those stupid #@%@$%^& cd's and filling the landfills with garbage that doesn't degrade. They are hypocrites!
Money not found! A)bort, R)etry, D)eclare Bankruptcy
You know it's a funny thing because businesses like and hate spam. They like it because it brings in money and they hate it because they have to spend money on spam filters and lost work time.
Here is a possible solution. Spammers cover their tracks. Well instead of trying to go after spammers go after the business that use them. Those businesses MUST be traceable because they include ways to buy their product. If we must make a law, which would only work in the US, it should say "You can't hire a spammer to send your mail". Then when www.pacificmeds.com sends me a spam for "save money on prescription drugs" they can be fined.
Go after the source, not the person who fills the need. Once the need is squashed by the law spam will reduce greatly.
{Complaint}It the past 6 months are so I have been recieving about 200% more spam. I get to work in the morning and delete 90% of my e-mail becasue its spam. Out of every 200-300 e-mails I recieve, I actual only care about 10-20 of them, the rest is spam.{/Complaint}
The problem is that nobody can find a reasonable solution. Here are some examples of common solutions:
1."Make spam illegal out right."
Problem: OK, this is a bit extreme. Even if you did manage to do that, companies from outside the US or companies/people can hide where the e-mails are coming from, good luck catching them.
2."Charge for e-mails."
Problem: The people that want that are the post office folks. I seriously doubt anybody would sit back and allow this. Just thinking about pisses me off.
3."Find the people that send spam and destroy them."
Problem: OK, this is my personal favorite. But, the goverment already made that illegal. It's like the saying goes: "Some people are alive simply because it is illegal to kill them." BTW, all of you peeps out there that are going to yell at me for suggesting something like that: RELAX, IT WAS A JOKE!!! Have a sense of humor for goodness sake.
That's just my opinion,
SirLantos
The flying hamster of DOOM rains coconuts on your pitiful city.
I'm no software designer, but surely we could find some concept for migrating off of SMTP and POP and to a better, more secure protocol
Sure. Just like we convinced everyone to close off their open relays. Not going to work.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
I agree with this principle.
At what % do we look around and say, its time for a new protocol with spam avoidance built in?
50, 60, 75?
"Sig free in '03!"
What we need is an old fashion torch burning mob running around and storming these Kings of Spam to roast them alive. I'm sure we would have NO objections from anybody. I hate the strange hints that my penis is too small. Is it? Is there something someone is not telling me? I don't think it's too small. I think it's normal.
WTF is up with these printer ink mail. Do they think I'm running an illegal printing shop and I need all this ink because I'm running 24x7? I should be printing fake 20 dollar bills and but more ink!
If ISPs could find some way to limit each accounts number of outgoing messages, or charge per outgoing message over, say, 500 messages a day, this would probably be much less of a problem.
At the core of this problem is the Accountability Void, and the temptation that carries with it. When you look at the lengths that (some) ISPs and watchdogs go to block (much to libertarian chagrin) kiddie porn and other potentially offensive material, its clear that solving the spam problem is NOT about technical feasibility. If there was impetus there would be a solution. The problem is that the ISP can say "we dont send it, we dont receive it, its not our problem," the spammer can say "I send it, but I use fake accounts that get closed in 6 hours, so I don't have to take responsibility for it" and, for the most part, the receiver says "I received this, but theres really not much I can do about it." I describe this phenomenon as an "Accountability Void." No one is responsible for spam.
Until there is an accountability structure in place, either legislative, technical, or economic, spam will go on. One of these days, AOL or some other "big enough" player is going to do something that will "change everything" like demand digital signatures, or some other method that fills the accountability void and spam will cease to be a problem.
This too shall pass.
The problem is, you are still getting spam. The filter may block you from seeing most of it, and it may stop you from getting tags with linked images, etc... but it's still coming in.
You, and your ISP, are paying for the bandwidth it uses. And if you ever had to travel and get email by dialup/cellphone... you can expect that you'll notice spam simply by the large delays it takes you to download email.
Client-side filters only mask the problem... it's like having an air-freshener and big fan in a public washroom.... the stink is still lingering in the background.
Is your spam problem GONE or is it simply hidden from view? You and your ISP have alreay paid the cost of that spam. The cost to you seems minimal, but to a large ISP it is HUGE. When your ISP raises it's rates due to the volume of spam that you do not see yet still receive, will you still be happy with your filter as "The Solution" to spam?
Don't get me wrong, I have been filtering spam for years. Filters can minimize the impact of the spam problem, but they do nothing to solve it.
The easiest way to transfer the cost to the sender is to change the protocol so that mail is stored on the sending server, and that only a message header with a link to the message body is stored on the receiving server.
:-) .
This way, spammers will either a) need their own server (which can unambiguously identified and blocked), or b) the spammer's ISP will have to store the millions of message bodies and handle all the generated traffic. This will give a good incentive to the spammer's ISP for getting rid of the spammer.
Also, this would get rid of fake originating server identification in headers, as a fake header would lead to no message body
For this to work, it is important that the message subject be considered a part of the message body, not its header. Otherwise, spammers will try to put their message in the subject!
This would be a simple yet very effective solution.
With one exception......viruses. Filter these suckers out at the server. This will cut your opps I clicked on something I should not have syndrome.
Gorkman
The article stated the figure came from Brightmail not AOL.
If it was AOL or Verizon, then I would think that the numbers would be skewed as they have sued spammers and those spammers have agreed not to send spam on those networks.
Grasshopper, remember the two rules of spammers.
1. Spammers lie.
2. If a spammer says anything, see rule 1.
Fight Spammers!
Truth in advertising laws.
Restrictions on how/when/where some businesses can advertise. (Tobacco/Alcohol)
Nike v. Kasky
It's not as clear-cut as you make it sound.
About 18 percent of the traffic carried by the US Postal Service is bulk mailing, but USPS studies say that postal employees spend 25 percent of their time sorting it. All a waste? Keep in mind that the DMA asserts the $50 billion was raised as a result of bulk mailings by charities.
I'd be interested in knowing what the total load on our economy is from the two forms, inluding manpower, network load, inconvenience etc. My suspicion is that the hyperventilation over spams growth is driving up the percieved cost, especially when you consider the cheapness of bandwidth, and that spam control is an automation battle leaving the real expensive resource, humans, to design the filters and clean up what they miss.
"The spammers are evil folks," Evil? Like Hitler evil?
Opportunists, yes. Using mildly unethical means to further themselves in business venture, often. But I wonder how many people who are apoplectic about the "evilness" of spammers cheat on their wives, cheat on their taxes, park in handicapped zones, etc. . .All no more evil than faking a return address, and certainly no less.
-----
Believe me, I'm as surprised by my comment as you are.
A lot of people here are saying that more than 40% of their email is spam and that the figure quoted is somehow wrong. A lot of people here also fail to take into consideration that the 40% figure is very likely an approximation or an average and is not valid for every single user on the internet. Being computer literate, having a website, posting on different websites and other internet activities contribute to more spam because of email harvesting. Sure, you and I get more spam than the average Joe, my spam is more like 80% of all emails received, but do not forget about all the people that are on AOL and have only given their email to their family relatives. Granted, they will receive some spam too, but surely not as much as the rest of us.
-- Daemon@Slashdot
Nice innit?
However did you notice in the article it said:
"nearly doubling in the past six months, according to Brightmail Inc., a major vendor of anti-spam software."
So I'm not 100% sure the stats can be believed - it's in their interest to tell you it's all doom and gloom. It's even in their interest to have you spammed, but that of course would be conspiracy theory central...
YAW.
Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
Maybe I'm not getting this. I don't know what you do for a living, but let's say you're a web designer.
I get your name from Bob, a former client, and I want you to design my web site. I send you e-mail to that effect and you never see it because I'm not on the white list? If that's the case it would be unworkable for 90% of business e-mail, since most of what you're trying to do is make contact with prospects you've never met before.
Sorry if I misunderstood, but it seems as though for business e-mail accounts I'd spend more time manageing my white list that deleting spam.
-----
Believe me, I'm as surprised by my comment as you are.
Is 40% what the user sees or what hits the ISP?
What if for one day - 24 hours - everyone who is running a spam filter at any level simply took the filters down. Show the users what the real flood of junk looks like. I bet the hue and cry would provoke real efforts - legal or technical - to solve the problem once and for all.
I find myself thinking; what's all the fuss about, I only actually see a half dozen spam messages a day in my Hotmail and POP accounts. But I know that for every piece I see there are untold dozens being blocked by filters. Filters merely hide the scope of the problem from the end users, but ISP's still have to deal with the bandwidth.
Take down the filters for a day and let everyone see the real scope of the horror that is spam
-Jetset
- I can't hear the forest for all the falling trees-
And AOL doesn't have 40 million users - they have 40 million SNs (screen names). If they counted only one user per account instead of SNs, their claim would be substantially smaller.
It's also possible that a spammer could harvest email addresses using a Outlook virus that infected one of your friends or anyone who has been sent an email that has your email address in the header (or body for that matter).
I don't know if these sort of viruses are common but if they're not now they could be in the future.
Having multiple email addresses is a good idea but, unfortunately, not a perfect solution. Once your "safe" email address is in the hands of a spammer they can pass it on to other spammers and it can become unusable quite quickly.
...with economical impacts in the billions might attract enough federal attention to get some standardized laws...
Maybe I'm too cynical, but I'd expect to see a tax cut to benefit the wealthiest spammers instead of anything that would help the common email recipient.