Slashdot Mirror
The Next Step in Fighting Spam: Greylisting
Evan Harris writes "I've just published a paper on a new and unique spam blocking method called "Greylisting". The best thing about it other than achieving better than 97% effectiveness in blocking spam, is that it practically eliminates the main problem of other solutions: the false-positive. There's even source code for an example implementation written as a perl filter for sendmail, along with instructions for installing, so you can get up and running quickly."
I'm going to try to say this as nicely as possible and without trolling:
You have just rendered Greylisting pretty useless by making it open source. Spammers are much smarter than you think and what you have basically done is shown them what they need to do in order to get around Greylisting. That's just my take on the issue, maybe I'm wrong but I doubt it.
I have often regretted my speech, never my silence.
-Xenocrates
most spam today is sent through open relays. Those relays will simply retry the delivery no matter which software the spammer uses, so the method won't work.
The Next Step in the Spam Control War: Greylisting
By Evan Harris
Copyright 2003, all rights reserved.
Introduction
This paper proposes a new and currently very effective method of enhancing the abilities of mail systems to limit the amount of spam that they recieve and deliver to their users. For the purposes of this paper, we will call this new method "Greylisting". The reason for choosing this name should become obvious as we progress.
Greylisting has been designed from the start to satisfy certain criteria:
1. Have minimal impact on users
2. Limit spammers ability to circumvent the blocking
3. Require minimal maintenance at both the user and administrator level
User-level spam blocking, while somewhat effective has a few key drawbacks that make its use in the continuing spam war undesirable. A few of these are:
1. It provides no notice to the senders of legitimate email that is falsely identified as spam.
2. It places most of the costs of processing the spam on the receivers side rather than the spammers side.
3. It provides no real disincentive to spammers to stop wasting our time and resources.
As a result, Greylisting is designed to be implemented at the MTA level, where we can cause the spammers the most amount of grief.
For the purposes of evaluating and testing Greylisting, an example implementation has been written of a filter that runs at the MTA (Message Transfer Agent) level. The source for this example implementation is available as a link below, and as other implementations or additional utility code become available, they will also be linked.
Greylisting has been tested on a few small scale mail hosts (less than 100 users, though with a fairly diverse set of senders from all over the world, and volumes over 10,000 email attempts a day), however it is designed to be scalable, as well as low impact to both administrators and users, and should be acceptable for use on a wide range of systems, including those of very large scale. Of course, performance issues are very dependent on implementation details.
The Greylisting method proposed in this paper is a complimentary method to other existing and yet-to-be-designed spam control systems, and is not intended as a replacement for those other methods. In fact, it is expected that spammers will eventually try to minimise the effectiveness of this method of blocking, and Greylisting is designed to limit options available to the spammer when attempting to do so.
The great thing about Greylisting is that the only methods of circumventing it will only make other spam control techniques just that much more effective (primarily DNS and other methods of blacklisting based on IP address) even after this adaptation by the spammers has occurred.
The Greylisting Method
High Level Overview
Greylisting got it's name because it is kind of a cross between black- and white-listing, with mostly automatic maintenance. A key element of the Greylisting method is this automatic maintenance.
The Greylisting method is very simple. It only looks at three pieces of information (which we will refer to as a "triplet" from now on) about any particular mail delivery attempt:
1. The IP address of the host attempting the delivery
2. The envelope sender address
3. The envelope recipient address
From this, we now have a unique triplet for identifying a mail "relationship". With this data, we simply follow a basic rule, which is:
If we have never seen this triplet before, then refuse this delivery and any others that may come within a certain period of time with a temporary failure.
Since SMTP is considered an unreliable transport, the possibility of temporary failures is built into the core spec (see RFC 821). As such, any well behaved message transfer agent (MTA) should attempt retries if given an appropriate temporary failure code for a delivery attempt (see below for discussion of issues concerning non-conforming MTA's)
First I heard of it was from Landon Noll and Mel Pleasant. It is noted in brief as one of the techniques in this plan to end spam (though their plan, which did include the triplets, is not laid out in full there.)
It is a worthwhile technique for a little while, and if spammers were rational, would be worthwhile for some time to come. But spammers are not rational, and already this technique is not as useful as would be hoped.
Do a Google Search for Tempfailing especially in ASRG to see statistics etc.
Time critical mailing will go out the window. I can see how this might make any corporate user irate. The same thing goes for challenge-response, the time delay in the business world is unacceptable.
This would be great for personal mail, but that's about it. ISPs would have the same problems with it because their business-class users most likely use the same servers as their consumer-class users.
If they can get around it by looking at the source, then something was wrong with it, waiting to be exploited. Might as well fix it.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
with all of these solutions to spam..and all of the spam now flooding mail servers...
isn't it time to change the specification (RFC) and possibly the manner in which our current system works? i haven't come up with anything yet, but surely there must be some sort of handshaking/secure type connection that could be used - - some sort of postage (free) that is encrypted into the mail, that states that it is genuine....kind of like the hologram on those windows cds...
i dunno. file this story under redundant.
We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
Doels this mean all public crypto algorithims are useless?
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
How about in the spirit of RFC 3514 (the evil bit) we create a spam header in email. Spam will set this header so we can easily filter it out.
Where? To me, publishing a paper means your writing appeared in some peer-reviewed journal (where the "peers" are acknowledged as domain experts). What you did was put up a web page. With a donation link at the bottom.
For others looking for a solution, try POPFile. Open source, cross platform, gives me 96% accuracy.
One more thing: "practically eliminates" is not the same as "eliminates".
The article also doesn't measure the amount of spam coming through those relays. Even if there are only 10 open relays in the UK at any one time, it still might be possible for all of the spam to be coming through them.
Certainly, closing down open relays is a good thing, but lowering the percentage of open relays doesn't prove anything about the source of spam
Look at it this way: you can stop crank calls by unlisting your phone numbers. But you can't unlist the hospital, the ambulance service, the fire department, etc.
We're not all end-users. Some of us are the plumbers.
At USENIX '03 there was a paper presented on artificial intelligence techniques for spam detection. I can't provide a link since only USENIX members can download the paper (at this point, at least). I was a coauthor of that paper.
One of the things we've discovered in our research is that some classes of filters (most notably, the one I have been developing along with a few other individuals) are actually more effective at correctly classifying email than humans are. That is to say, you can train the learning algorithm on mostly-correctly-classified data, then re-run it over the training data, and almost miraculously, it discovers all kinds of email in the training set that was incorrectly classified.
I.e., this filter has discovered mail that I myself incorrectly thought was spam. It's scary, because there's a lot of it.
To assume that a human will always be 100% accurate at classifying their own email isn't just arrogant, it's plain wrong. Newer filters that will be introduced in the near future might possibly be more accurate than you, a frail human, could ever be.
The Next Step in Fighting Spam: Death Penalty
http://use.perl.org
I'm wondering how I'm going to explain that to a new customer over the phone who says "I'll just email that file right now so we can go over it together".
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
It deals with spam at the server level. All the wonderful user-level solutions don't do jack to stop spam from being sent. Look at the numbers the spammers show for return rate, and look at how fast spam programs can go, and you'll see that the only solutions that will work are those that make it expensive to send spam. Anything else will just make the spammers send more spam to try and get the hit rate they need.
The registrar I use (jumpdomain.com) has a clever hack for despamming WHOIS contact email. Basically they change your published contact address once a week. The published address i automatically generated, looks like gibberish, and forwards to your real address. If someone wants to contact you by looking up your address by WHOIS and writing to you, it works fine. But if they add the address to a mailing list, it stops working in a week. That has eliminated almost all my WHOIS spam. Good scheme.
We should grab some of the guys who get 1000+ spams per day, point them to the physical location of the spammers, and then step back. I can guarantee you that vigilante justice is entirely appropriate here, considering we want the gov to step back from the 'net instead of entering new "secret arrests of spammers"(?) laws.
I'm currently using Bogofilter (and looking into CRM114) and getting better than 99% accuracy (about 1 in 200 false negatives at the moment) and very very few false positives (maybe 2 in 5000 messages).
Of course these are MUA level filters (and yes, I know, I've already "paid" with bandwidth to download the spam) - however since the proposed "greylister" would have to be installed as the MTA at major ISPs (as the authors note) I'm not convinced that is more likely to get widespread adoption than the various sorts of adaptive client-based filtering now available, particularly as it requires a database to back the method up.
As far as I am concerned the major factor in a spam filter should be zero false positives - personally I don't mind reviewing one or two spams a week but I get really annoyed if I were to lose a real message (note the two false positives I have sent to date with bogofilter contained forwarded sales pitches along with a message).
-- Nothing unusual happened today
I've seen some comments that say (paraphrasing) "For real SPAM filtering use <POPFile|Spamassassin|...>", but these missed the point (or perhaps didn't read the paper?). This method is a "first-pass" filter, getting rid of e-mails for which no redelivery attempt will be made. The second-pass filter should still be implemented for everything that gets through the first pass. From the paper:
"The Greylisting method proposed in this paper is a complimentary method to other existing and yet-to-be-designed spam control systems, and is not intended as a replacement for those other methods. In fact, it is expected that spammers will eventually try to minimise the effectiveness of this method of blocking, and Greylisting is designed to limit options available to the spammer when attempting to do so."
sig != null
The key is to make spammers not make money!
If people start adopting anti-spam technologies we would reduce the return spammers get from sending spam. Reduce this enough and the spamming business will no longer be profitable.
POPFile is great. I've also used SAProxy (http://saproxy.bloomba.com/) under windows and it works great too.
Again, the idea is not to eliminate all spam, but to reduce the return rate, and therefore the money made by spammers.
Aside from the obvious of getting the authorities to crack down on the existing illegal activities (relay hijacking, violation of TOS of ISPs, header forging, etc.) which is the only true solution, I think there are much better approaches than this "greylisting" method.
The problem with the greylist method is it still slows down mail service, and potentially more than the relay blacklist features. The objective here is that end-user/networks should not be penalized in the fight against spam. We already waste too many resources, and according to my latest mail server stats, more than 65% of our inbound mail is UCE. I'm fed up with more than half my e-mail bandwidth being crap my users didn't request so more resource allocation on a local level in the fight against spam is counterproductive!
Here's a very clever, much more practical method I cound recently.
A company is Canada has set up what it calls SORBS: Spam and Open Relay Blocking System.
What's different from their blacklist is that they maintain "honeypots" strategically located around the Internet. These are servers they specifically set up as inbound mail relays, but never for legitimate purposes. If the servers get [select] mail activity, it's assumed to not be legitimate and it flags the source as a potential spammer... it makes a lot of sense. You create a domain name, but don't promote it in any legitimate manner, and/or you seed spam lists with these e-mail addresses and then let the spammers send to your key systems around the internet and *bam*, they're identified in real time, and then added to a blacklist.
I really like this idea. Like any other system, it has the potential for abuse but the beauty is the identity of the honeypot systems is kept secret, so it's very difficult for anyone other than spammers to exploit the network.