Slashdot Mirror
SendMail CTO Sounds Off On Spam and FTC
CowboyRobot writes "Eric Allman takes his well-deserved turn in commenting on the state of spam, the dark future, and the need for intervention.
He calls spam an "arms race" where "in the long run everyone loses (except the arms dealers)."
As you might imagine, he's on our side, and he does a good job of clearly describing the current state of spam, and the possible solutions."
of the do not spam registry that they mention in the article. But it seems like a real pipe dream considering how much trouble there has been getting the do-not-call registry up and running.
Also, most telemarketing is done from in-country because of LD charges. Not so with e-mail. It's pretty hard to enforce US laws on a Taiwan spamhaus.
Ah well, every little voice against spam warms me a little at least.
lysergically yours
I am sorry to tell you that you dont understand the average internet user at all. Installing any such spam filter or tool is well beyond the capability of 95% of the users atleast. Classifying mails as "spam" and "ham" and training the bayes engine and all are good for geeks, but not for the average user.Belive me for this. For him/her, these are just unacceptable solution and spammers exploit this weak point. As long as substantial chunk of users are non-geeks, spammers can flourish.And anti-spam laws are relevent in this context.
http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
Your last paragraph, however, shows that nevertheless you completely don't get it, and, by completely, I mean that you really sound as clueless as can be on the topic of spam.
Let's see how many standard spam-thread replies are required for your two sentences of nonsense at the end.
- SPAM is an arms race - single tools don't work, because eventually they will be beaten, as has happened to ALL tools as yet, including bayesian filters.
- SPAM tools such as you suggest are basically for the 3l337. you are basically saying "spam is not my problem if *I* can avoid it. this is a) antisocial and b) bs, because
...
- your note does not in any way address those billions of dollars of bandwidth wasted before spam gets to your personal box.
- if you stop 99% of spam now, by a rough guesstimate of what the parent article alluded to, you can roughly expect to get 100 times more spam than you currently do in 2.5 years time. ergo, problem not solved.
- you still haven't worked on the issue of spam definition.
In short, any article, post, or message that claims that Product X is an acceptable solution to SPAM just doesn't get it.All you can do is look at the spam industry itself, and ask, "why wouldn't they harvest opt-outs for future spamming?" By opting out, after all, you've just given proof that the email address in question is valuable to you. Why wouldn't they want to take advantage of that piece of information. Do you think spammers suddenly adopt scruples on this point? Given how unscrupulous spammers are in every other aspect of what they do, I think it's absurd to think they treat opt-out lists with any integrity.
That opt-out lists will be abused by spammers is common-sense. I think the burden of proof is on you to show otherwise.
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
OK, at first you were just the usual whinging slashbot, repeating the "Sendmail is BAD" mantra that people who've never run major mailserver like to parrot. (With the usual complaints, which all sound like "Ford cars must be slow, because the Model T was slow, and they must all be broken, because the Ford Motor Co. has had recalls where they fixed cars for free".)
Then you mentioned "MS Exchange developers" in the same breath as Wietse Venema and Dan Berstein, and finished off by calling Allman a "suit".
You must be a troll, then! Or profoundly, phenomenally ignorant.
Back in the '80s, all sorts of open forwarding were great ideas. Do you remember having to put someone%domain@att.com because AT&T seemed to have better routing abilities than your local box?
Root access always was a hack, but it is a quick and easy way to get around file permissions. Back before pop/imap when everyone read directly from $MAIL, you needed a way to restrict mail to the user and the sendmail program. Who bothered with complicated groups just for that?
I agree that these justifications have gone the way of the dodo, but anyone who's been around understands where they came from.
I'm not trying to defend how sendmail works today, just to explain why those features are present. Personally, I prefer the old "trust everyone" model for mail than the insanity that we have today, but that isn't realistic. DJB's paranoia is useful thing in these modern times.
- doug
One of the things mumblestheclown is pointing out is that the fact that you personally are currently managing to filter out your spam is *not* sufficent evidence to prove that the software you are using will be an effective long-term solution.
The software you're using (however clever it is, however hard it tries to "learn" new types of spam), has easily exploitable flaws. The spammers haven't gotten around to exploiting them because it probably hasn't seemed worth their while--probably not enough people are using the same type of filter yet. But they will, eventually. At which point filters that take a fundamentally new approach will be required. Which the spammers will eventually figure out a way around. Etcetera.
Most spam filters are designed with the goal of filtering out spam that is similar to currently circulating spam; they make no attempt to resist an intelligent person who has spent some time thinking about how to circumvent the filter.
Bayesian filters are no exception here.
--Bruce Fields