Slashdot Mirror


You've Got Spam: AOL Blocks 1/2 Trillion Spam

yohaas writes "Yahoo! News is reporting that AOL blocked more than 500 billion spam messages for its users in 2003. That comes to 40 messages a day per user. The company regularly blocks 75-80% of all incoming mail as spam! The article also lists the top 10 spam phrases for the year, including such come-ons as: 'Viagra online', 'Online pharmacy', 'Get out of debt' and 'Get bigger'."

27 of 472 comments (clear)

  1. Their mail server went down again, that's all by corebreech · · Score: 5, Funny

    AOL has been losing email for over a decade now.

    (is this another dupe story?)

  2. Imagine. by __aavhli5779 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's been suggested in nanae that as a brutal display of the efficacy of spam-fighting and, most importantly, blocklisting, major ISPs all simultaenously turn off their spam defenses for a day to show users just how much UCE spew is clogging the internet every day.

    Of course, the idea is repeatedly turned down for its utter lack of pragmatism.

    But damn, 500 billion spams, and that's only to AOL.

    Just imagine.

    The instant clogging of mail-servers around the world and subsequent technological disruption might actually get the general computer-using public to take more of an interest in the fact that around 200 gangs of people are effectively raping and pillaging the Internet right under their eyes.

    But then again, what can one do when faced with the Tragedy of the Commons?

    1. Re:Imagine. by Geek+of+Tech · · Score: 5, Insightful
      This coming from the people that I can't get to stop sending me AOL CDs... oh the irony!

      --
      Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
    2. Re:Imagine. by jht · · Score: 5, Informative

      I know that was a joke (and a decent one, at that), but I must point out that there's a significant difference between AOL paying their money to mail you a nigh-infinite quantity of CD's and some a-hole spammer making you and AOL both pay to process and read their Viagra spam.

      And to give AOL a little credit, even they are making fun of all the CD's they mail out in their most recent TV ads.

      Though it makes my head hurt to see Jerry Stiller and Snoop Dogg in a commercial together. That's just wrong on so many diffferent levels...

      --
      -- Josh Turiel
      "2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
    3. Re:Imagine. by dekashizl · · Score: 5, Funny

      Though it makes my head hurt to see Jerry Stiller and Snoop Dogg in a commercial together. That's just wrong on so many diffferent levels...

      Now wait just one minnizle.

    4. Re:Imagine. by MrChuck · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I work anti-spam at a large corp. 70% is about right.

      I've done a lot of email work with companies.

      It's damaging email. It's hurting business. It costs BILLIONS a year to slow down spam to make mailboxes not entirely useless.

      A manager: "I can't see how someone serious about doing business could keep relying on email."

      Mail is being discarded (no bounce backs, no trail) all over the place.

      Now, when the US House stops blocking spam to their own mailboxes, maybe we'll get some laws with some balls and maybe the FTC, FBI and similar agencies might get the budget and motivation to track down the HUGE amount of spam that is illegal in that it's perpetrating scams or illegal medicines.

      We convict the minor players and offer them real prison or they get to appear on the new Fox show:
      "Cane the Spammer".

      20 whacks. Each whack given by a system admin selected by lottery.

      Do it public and demotivate the kiddies willing to blast out some mail for some guy for $500.

    5. Re:Imagine. by nuintari · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are quiet correct, as a sysadmin, I know full well just how much money spam costs, and a big chunck of it is not paid for by the spammer. Its paid for by the network that has to pay for the bandwidth that is used to deliver the crap the spammer sends to me, intended for my customers that don't even want the f'ing shit. I have to pay so a spammer can choke my mail server full of crap that will just get deleted. I have to pay for the spammers that employ dictionary attacks to get spam through to any user they can find. Its my bandwidth that suffers so that they can bombard just a few dozen more people with their nonsense ads that no one wants to see. I didn't ask for it, nor did my customers, why the fuck should I have to pay for it then?

      And if that is not enough, I can assure you, a great deal of spam is comming in from windows systems that have been infected with some exploit and turned into mail relays. Real Time Blacklists have been a lot less effective over the past few weeks due to spam comming from dsl and cable lines now with a new vigor. Its not just a couple comming from an owned pc, its a couple hundred.

      And yet, its still fucking legal! Explain it to me God, explain it to me, I want it explained, Jesus!!!!!!

      --

      --Nuintari

      slashdot : where an opinion can be wrong.

  3. Outbound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now if they'd only block going outbound too!

  4. They should do something. by I'm+back · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Instead of sending the mails to the bitbucket AOL should do something about the abuse. They've got the IP addresses of half a trillian zombies and open proxies. Where's the AOL goon squad? They should be kicking down doors, not writing press releases.

  5. They also block real mail by wol · · Score: 5, Funny

    They may block a lot of garbage, but they also refuse to admit that my email to my mother is not spam.

    Maybe there is something she's not telling me.

    Mom!

    --
    If you think deeply enough, you will have no single direction for your outrage.
    1. Re:They also block real mail by NoData · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe if you stopped sending your mother,
      "Mom! The all new penis patch will get you bigger and harder than ever!" your email would go through.

    2. Re:They also block real mail by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Although funny, it is also true. AOL has been randomly blocking entire ISPs - my hosting service's outgoing SMTP server was arbitrarily blocked by AOL for a total of about a month back around October. My hosting service had absolutely no violations of any kind, and after 2-3 weeks of bitcing and voice-mail-hell, AOL did finally respond, agree that they were not big-bad-purveyors-of-donkey-dick and unblocked them... Only to reblock them again in about 10 days, at which point my hosting service had to start all over again with them. It seems like the second time was the charm since I just sent email to an AOL user today and it didn't bounce (maybe AOL is now silently eating email instead of bouncing, that sure wouldn't make my life easier).

      Anyway, from what I read on the net my hosting provider's experience with AOL's blocking of incoming SMTP connections is not out of the ordinary, many, maybe hundreds, of "little guys" have had the same experience. Makes me want to know the false positive rate for their spam blocking -- I'm willing to bet that AOL themselves don't even know the answer to that one.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  6. AOL's mail policies suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    They bounce back ALL mail to addresses that don't exist, and if some spammer users YOUR domain or YOUR email address, you get all the bounces. They also don't respond when you try to get them to stop. It's incredibly frustrating.

  7. Yep, the number doesn't surprise me either by millisa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I just took a gander at my logs on my postfix-amavisd-spamassassin front ends for one of my smaller ISP's and after doing the math, it's blocking ~36 spam/user/day on average (with spamassassin only blocking at score 9+). It doesn't surprise me that AOL is getting somewhere around ~40spam/user/day as it is more widely visible and the userbase as a whole is generally a lot more likely to do things that would encourage spammers . . .

  8. I am so sick of spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It has nothing to offer me since I work from home using my degree (obtained online) in pharmaceuticals. I have a huge cock, am quite rich, get my insurance for free and own my home outright. I do have to use viagra occasionally because it is sometimes hard to get it up for some good Oprah XXX action but I can get it through the pharmacy which I run online.

  9. Collateral Damage by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    AOL blocks a lot of legitimate email as well, however. If you prefer to run your own email server (for example, about half of all the Linux broadband users on Slashdot) then you cannot send to an AOL user... same goes for SWBell users too I think. Sure they block a lot of email and I can kinda understand their purpose in blocking "dynamic" or "residential" IPs... but that is collateral damage.

  10. Spam has dropped since January 1st for me by Crazieeman · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm not sure if it has to do with the new United States anti-spam law or not, but I have received the same amount of spam in 48 hours as I would have in 12 hours in 2003. About 45 emails.

  11. That's 9k petebytes by Maskirovka · · Score: 5, Insightful
    (5E11*20kb)/(1024E3) [1024E4 kilabytes/terrabyte]
    =9,765.6 petabytes [I guessed at the average size of a spam email]

    I wonder how much that costs AOL?

  12. Only Spam? by Spacejock · · Score: 5, Interesting

    iiNet is one of the largest ISPs in Australia (third or fourth now, I think). I got an advisory yesterday saying AOL and RR had both blocked all inbound mail from iinet as 'spam' They can crow about 500 billion mails all they like, but if a lot of it involves turning off mail from whole slabs of legitimate users, then it's not much of a service. The other thing is, if spammers are using trojans to create spam relays, then it's a bit hard to blame a particular ISP if a bunch of their users have been infected with this stuff. iiNet has a policy of advising users when they appear to be infected, they're cluey people too, they run everything on Debian as far as I can tell, and they have local mirrors for many Linux distros etc. I guess what I'm saying is that if you're going to block an ISP's mail you'd start with clueless behemoths who don't give a damn. Anyway, they appear to have a work-around in place, but RR is still blocking. Simon

  13. Re:How to stop SPAM at the source by KrispyKringle · · Score: 5, Interesting
    There arenumerous problems in this system that others have pointed out (and face it, this wasn't your idea). For one, even if there's no central authority, how would I get my mailserver approved? I run my own, for my own domain, which handles e-mail for just me. A number of people do the same thing. So now I have to apply and hope AOL deems me worthy of attention (even though ignoring me wouldn't likely affect anything at all, since I know probably nobody who uses AOL, and even if I did, I'm just one guy)?

    Whitelisting makes sense--trusting certain mailservers more and not bothering with intense heuristics on mail coming from them. But blacklisting anyone you don't know makes none. The Internet is too vast to really implement something like this without huge costs and huge losses; I think solutions like this likely do far more to Balkanize the Internet than to protect it.

    The solution mentioned in a previous Slashdot article a few days ago of making SMTP servers run a small computation per e-mail makes much more sense. This allows you to impose restrictions on non-whitelisted servers without completly ignoring them, either.

    But when you talk about the anonymity preferred by the spammers, you ignore the fact that they are, in fact, selling a product. Forget the spammers. Track down their clients, the ones paying for the ads. Problem solved.

  14. And this is the reason... by FearUncertaintyDoubt · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...why AOL users have such small penises and breasts.

  15. Re:You've got spam??!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I go to purdue universtiy in lafayette and when I try to email anyone with an AOL address, I get a return message saying that @purdue.edu has been blocked for spam. Its easy to reach 500 billion when you block out entire organizations and probably count all the legit email as spam. Their is no way a universities email server was used for spam, if a student sent spam their is no way they would be caught. This suggests aol makes no complaints with providers and just blocks automatically. Very bad. Whats the point in blocking spam if you don't report it to the ISP so that the spammer can go down for it.

  16. Imagine by KalvinB · · Score: 5, Interesting

    if you couldn't send anonymous snail mail.

    Or anonymous e-mail. That's where this "signed" e-mail crap is going.

    Imagine every message you send being tracible right back to you.

    But hey, what's the trashing of rights in the name of convienience.

    If you can send e-mails without being traced, so can spammers.

    If spammers can't send e-mails without being traced, neither can you.

    "Spammers are most afraid of being tracked and identified. "

    Yeah, and nobody has a legitimate reason to not want to be traced.

    I spent all of 2 hours modifying RinetD to do proper logging in between senders and my mail server. I spent another 3 hours writting a simple program to parse that log pulling out who a message is from, who it's going to, the subject line and what links it contains and the domains of those links.

    Any entry "to" entry that isn't one of my e-mail addresses is deleted. The remaining are then examined for spam domains by looking at the froms and subject lines and the domains themselves.

    A short list:

    If expression both matches "*imgehost.com*" Delete ""
    If expression both matches "*mydailyoffer.com*" Delete ""
    If expression both matches "*topofferz.net*" Delete ""
    If expression both matches "*adweawen.biz*" Delete ""
    If expression both matches "*divineprice.com*" Delete ""
    If expression both matches "*stamps.com*" Delete ""

    And poof, no more ads from those companies and nobody's right to privacy is infringed. If they happen to have multiple domains for the same campaign I'll catch them as they come.

    I will not support a means to subvert my right to privacy over some stupid ads.

    How much are your rights worth to you? Not much apparently.

    Terrorists blow up buildings and we get the patriot act. "terrorists" flood inboxes and you demand tracable e-mail.

    Get bent.

    Ben

  17. Re:You've got spam??!? by Samari711 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm a student at Notre Dame and work for the IT people and get to go clean compromised machines. generally any machine spewing spam gets picked up by university sniffers relatively quickly and their machine is disconnected before much harm could be done. also anything reported as spamming would be disconnected as well. they keep mac address records and such so that finding the computers is more or less easy. of course a lot of the stuff the IT people do is ass backwards at times and i'm sure at an engineering school like purdue they tend to do things a bit more sensically, so the chances of spam originating from a university with any sense at all is extremely small.

    --

    I never said I was smart, I just said I was smarter than you

  18. Re:Short of going to war with China by spicedhamhawg · · Score: 5, Informative

    No, the regulations are non-existent, and not just overseas, either. Regulations - in the sense of laws, that is - are nearly non-existent in the USA, Canada, and Europe as well. Spammers spam with near-impunity in all those places. The worst thing that can happen - unless they have the bad luck of being in a state that has a spam law with teeth and an attorney general to match - is they get their service disconnected. In a day or two or three, they've bought another connection somewhere else.

    I used to work for a large, well-known hosting company whose name is taken from a book of the Bible. They didn't have to many spammers or pr0n sites in their space when things were booming, but now they're among the worst for hosting spammers.

    There are network providers all over the country that are as bad or worse. I recently ran across one that had a /21 bought from some other upstream, and after some digging it became obvious that this entire network provider was nothing but a front for providing bandwidth to spammers.

    A lot of spam is sent through China by contract with network providers there, and through South Korea because it's the open proxy capitol of the world, and there is a very large and well organized spam ring operating in eastern Europe as well, and it seems soundly connected to US spammers. The spam business has gone international in a big way.

    In none of those places, including the US and Canada, generally, is spam illegal, so it's never necessary to bribe any government official into looking the other way. It's just easier to pay off the ISP to look the other way in some countries, but again, that's pretty easy in a lot of places in North America too. When the economy goes down, pink contracts go up. Many companies and individuals will do just about anything to survive, and network providers are certainly no exception. For every one that will cut a spammer's connection as soon as they notice, there's another that will happily sell the spammer as much bandwidth and IP space as he wants. Then they pass that space on to some other unsuspecting customer, who finds that she can't send mail to a lot of places because that netblock is in every RBL - good, bad, or ugly - in the world.

    As much as we rightly despise spammers, those who sheeld them and knowingly sell them bandwidth and colo space are just as bad.

  19. Re:You've got spam??!? by mrd_yaddayadda · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Our mail server has somehow erroneously been blacklisted and so we have added about 100 emails of that "Spam" to that half a trillion. I'm sure we're not alone.

    The blacklists aren't infallible and get messed up and tend to be very slow to respond to errors or worse just don't bother (or even worse demand money to be removed in one noteable case).

    What the article should say is that AOL blocked half a trillion emails, god knows how many of them were legit emails or how many really were spam...

  20. Re:I hate aol's blocking! by Grimster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Every now and then we'll wake up to find one or more of our servers blocked by aol, you can test it quickly by telnetting to port 25 on one of their MX's and it'll tell you right away if you're blocked.

    Call, stay on hold 45 minutes, and you get "white listed" for 30 days and they ask you to setup a special email to send you spam complaints to if that IP becomes a problem again in the future. Sounds good right? I mean we host nearly 13,000 web sites for over 6000 customers, we DO get some spam sent through us once in a while (open formmail.php is the worst) and we handle it the second it's noticed.

    HOWEVER we have YET to recieve ONE, and I mean that as in a SINGLE complaint from AOL for ANY of our ips. Yet 7 times now we've been blocked. Luckily it hasn't happened in a few weeks.

    Do you know how annoying it is when 13,000 web sites become unable to talk to aol? Jesus christ.

    Here's the funny part, often times it's only 1 or 2 of the (best I can tell) 4 main MX servers blocking us, so much for keeping those in sync.

    I applaud them for trying to curb the incoming spam but goddamnit make it POSSIBLE to work with and if you block someone TELL THEM WHY and maybe a little warning please! If I'm notified of a problem I'll GLADLY nuke the spammers ass, or if it's just an open script, we can help the customer secure it, but if we're not informed what can we do? At least spamcop sends us emails with headers of the spam so we can take care of it.

    So I gotta wonder how many of that half trillion is REALLY spam and how much is erroneous blocking.

    --
    --- www.f-theocean.com