A Timeline Of Spam And Antispam

Haak writes "American Scientist has a fine article by Brian Hayes summing up the history of spam and proposed measures to deal with it." A shorter article along the same lines is running at The Economist.

Comments

The solution to getting rid of spam...

[Anonymous Coward]

is to delete it from your fucking mailbox.

Re:TIME...

[Anonymous Coward]

Spam, on the otherhand, is stoppable.

But, so many /. postings about spam recently... too much!

Unique? Sorry, but....

[djupedal]

Brightmail reports that 90 percent of all spam messages are now unique

Those messages can't be singularly classified as 'spam', and simultaneously defined as 'unique'.

Try again, using a reference such as 'variants'....better yet, don't, thanks.

Re:Unique? Sorry, but....

[jnana]

The ones *they see* could be unique if just one person from that mailing reports it to them. Also, they could be including the random text in every email, which actually does make it so that every spam is unique.

personally I think..

[sickboy_macosX]

I feel that SPAM should be considered like Telemarketing. And I think we should be able to opt out without notifying someone that our email address is life and getting filled. Interesting Article..I knew about the Green Card lottery, but I didnt know about DEC sending emails to people.

Re:TIME...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you by chance religious? I ask because the phrase 'our place in the universe' smacks of religion. We are the lords of our universe, if we choose to be and develop our minds sufficiently. Not everybody shares your parochial and limited outlook on the place of humans in the universe.

Re:Interesting Perspective

[lpontiac]

SPAM to me seems like another one of those things in life like drug dealing

I know it's not the main point you were trying to make, but I don't think this is a valid analogy. Drug dealing is a 'victimless' crime in which all parties concerned are consenting. Spamming is not.

There's a Reasonable, Albeit Draconian Solution:

[NeuroManson]

About 7 years back, when the WWW was still cutting its teeth, I had an epiphene; The best thing about the internet, is now everyone can use it. The worst thing about the internet, is now EVERYONE can use it.

Simply put, we should require some form of an operators' license to own or operate a computer. Despite there being radical differences between the types of machinery, an adequate comparison would be to either automobiles or firearms licensing legislation.

Before anyone makes the claim that this is not an adequate comparison, if could be eventually, the financial costs of such practices is matching, and quickly overtaking those of firearm and auto related damages. With time, eventually it could cross over to life threatening potential (for example, if someone decided to make a virus with a specific angle, wiping out or modifying records for grandma's prescription drugs).

(1) The majority of abuses involving computers involve people who consider themselves "above the law", with no care in regards to potential damages that abusing the system can incur. Virus writers, spammers, script kiddies, warez distributors and DDOS operaters often fall under this category. For sake of comparison, lets file this under speeders, reckless drivers, drunk drivers, or road rage. Similarly, the comparison can be made for firearms.

(2) The majority of problems that occur within the computer industry and most media involve people who are poorly trained (or not trained at all), or poorly advised in using their computers. People who do not patch their systems, do not operate a firewall, and open e-mail attachments to unleash every iteration of klez upon the net. This one can be filed as those who pretend a car or a gun is a toy, and treat them accordingly.

(3) Despite the whole "for the children" trend in regards to the internet, there is no practical method to truly enforce it without trampling every detail in the constitution. Therefore, unlike most offered solutions, informing and training the young'uns in how to go about using a computer responsibly would be ideal. Similarly, do the same with new computer users. Give them a basic course, then a test, and upon passing said test, they can purchase their own computer.

The problem is, as illustrated by current tech problems, along with the e-commerce industry's shortcomings and varied collapses, Joe Sixpack tends to think of the computer as an appliance. A new magical alternative to the TV that can make all their dreams come true. They need to be informed that the computer is a tool. And just like any tool, it can be abused, and that there could be consequences, something that most of them are for the most part either ignorant to, or even defiant of. Therefore, if they have this knowlege, then they cannot claim ignorance, and as such could finally be enforced, then charges can be pressed, and at least for the short run, problems can be avoided.

After all, if they could lock away Mitnick (sp?) for over 5 years for downloading a few files, why can't they lock away a virus author or spammer for operating without a permit? At least that way they can set a precedent. Hell, I'm sure a good deal of spammers out there are in violation of other things, such as unpaid taxes, working without a business license, et al. And how many of them use their proceeds towards drug use, pornography, etc? Make the bill tough enough and at least the spammers in the US can be eradicated virtually overnight.

There. The can of worms is open. Feel free to bait a hook.

Re:Starting over

[OpenYourEyes]

Well, in Houston they did get an energy boom in the 90's. And they messed it up same as they did in the '80s. Enron is the visible example, but all of the energy companies in Houston are suffering as well.

So to continue your analogy - even if we start over with a new idea, it won't work, because we seem to have the infinite capacity to make messes. Any solution to the spam problem that involves starting over would probably also cause one or more of the following (draw the analogies to Houston and Enron if you wish):

• Raising the price of communications, which the Internet has forced to drop. Even the refutable payment schemes would increase the cost of basic use, which is contrary to some of the Internet acheivements.
• Putting power in the hands of a few large companies instead of distributing it amongst everyone, which the Internet has done. Insert paranoia as appropriate.
• Prevent information from getting to the people who want it. Filters are a good stop-gap for now, but I think they will start to cause problems soon.
• Resistance to migration. Competing designs. Lack of adoption due to cost and effort. IPv6 has been out for how long? Email has been forgeable for eternity, PGP has been available for almost as long - and people largely don't use it.
• A very good chance that spammers would find a way to exploit the new system same as the old. Consider, for example, that even with the authentication available in AIM, the ammount of spam is tremendous. Amazing how fast they adapt.

Re:Interesting Perspective

[Steve B]

SPAM to me seems like another one of those things in life like drug dealing for instance. Whatever tactice we take to stop or outlaw it, people are always going to find a way around it.

There are two basic differences between spamming and drug dealing:

1. Spamming produces relatively modest profits for its most successful perpetrators. Major drug dealers routinely make millions of dollars a year. Thus, the former are far less likely than the latter to accept a prison term as an acceptable cost of doing business (particularly since the former are far less likely than the latter to have the sort of "muscle" contacts that will keep them above the bottom of the prison totem pole).

2. Drug dealing generally takes place between a willing seller and a willing buyer. Thus, neither party has an incentive to cooperate with the police. Spamming, on the other hand, takes place between a bandwidth thief and a bandwidth theft victim. The latter has every reason to cooperate with the police, if he is only convinced that the police will actually do something about the problem.
(This difference is what makes drug dealing more respectable than spamming.)

Re:Drug dealing is victimless?

[vorpal22]

You do realize that legalizing drugs would address every single problem that you've mentioned in your post, don't you?

Re:Drug Dealing is NOT a victimless crime

[Dyolf Knip]

Drug deals being conducted with guns is entirely a consequence of their being illegal. You may note that gang warfare over alcohol is rather hard to find nowadays, but it was quite intense during Prohibition and in fact is a going concern over in Saudi Arabia where (purely coincidentally, of course) it's illegal.

Re:Interesting Perspective

[fferreres]

Your drugs / spam analogy may seem to hold, but does not really. The economics of drugs is that if you ban it, but a lot of CONSUMER desperately want the product, then you'll STILL have drugs beign sold. Note I am not saying that if the drug dealer wants to sell it, they will sell it, the one that's putting the money, the consumer, will be the one rasing the offer so that he can have it.

Spam, on the other hand, only pleases the distributor (the spam services provider) and the producer (seller of the penis enlargement program). It does NOT pleases the consumer, they are not going to pay more for the penis enlargement program just because they seem to start receiving the email less often.

So, in the one hand, you have unstopable offending marketing, on the other hand you have a product that people will literaly kill so the can get doped. Stoping spam is much easier economically. Just make the spammers revenues harder. If you want to stop drug dealers, then burn colombia, bolivia and your corrupted agents (among other places / guys).

Re:Drug Dealing is a victimless crime

[billstewart]

Tobacco dealers don't go shooting each other on street corners. Tobacco is more addictive than heroin, and costs about as much per user per day to make (all the rest is the cost of the black market.)

Liquor dealers don't go shooting each other on the street corners, though people do rob liquor stores and drunks do get into fights. A day's worth of medical-priced opiates is cheaper than a half-bottle of bad gin.

Zucchini dealers don't go shooting each other, though there are the occasional Midwestern terrorist events (leaving bags of zucchini on other people's doorsteps during the growing season); marijuana's about as easy to grow as zucchini if you're not trying to hide it from the cops.

If we legalize drugs, street gangs may not stop carrying, but they'll mostly stop dealing, because you'll be able to get better-quality pharmaceutical drugs at the drug store and marijuana at the tobacco or liquor store, and at that point drug dealing turns into honest work, not significantly more profitable than selling flowers on the street corners except for a bit of low-markup business selling to minors along with selling them cigarettes. Might as well go back to stealing hubcaps.

Re:From the article...

[sholden]

In 2002 I received over 18,000 pieces of spam, for a total of 163 megabytes.

You get much smaller spams than me...

In 2002 my spam filter (which didn't come close to catching everything) caught 4546 spams for a total of 78 megabytes.

My spam has noticably increased this year with more of it getting past my filter (which I think I've fixed now). My spam folder for March has 854 spams in it, for 18 megabytes. Multiplying those number by 12 is too scary to even contemplate.

I use a seperate email address for things like online shopping and web site account creations and the like - it's a spam magnet, but I only check it when I'm actually expecting something (because I just ordered a book or something) so I don't care.

I do seem to get at least 2 copies of each spam since sholden@*.cs.usyd.edu.au ends up in my mailbox.