Slashdot Mirror


Can-Spam Increased Spam

andy1307 writes "According to New York Times, spam has actually gone up [Free registration required. You gave real info, right?] since the CAN-SPAM act went into effect. There is a graphic in the article that illustrates this increase. Before the CAN-SPAM act was passed, spam was about 60% of all e-mail traffic. Now it's 80%. In a we-told-you-so quote, Steve Linford, the founder of the Spamhaus Project, says CAN-SPAM legalized spam by giving bulk advertisers permission to send junk e-mail as long as they followed certain rules. Slashdot covered this story last year. For companies that offer offshore "bulk advertising" servers, business is booming. A survey from Stanford University estimates the global cost of spam in terms of lost productivity to be at 50 billion $ and 17 billion $ in the US alone. CAN-SPAM does give prosecutors some leverage to go after the merchants - but it must be proved that they knew, or should have known, that their wares were being fed into the illegal spam chain. " The BBC has a related story talking about rates of spam, viruses, and scam mail.

23 of 362 comments (clear)

  1. It's a shame too... by Powercntrl · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was truly hoping Can Spam meant sealing spammers up in airtight containers, preserving them for study by future generations.

    --

    ---
    DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    1. Re:It's a shame too... by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny
      > I was truly hoping Can Spam meant sealing spammers up in airtight containers, preserving them for study by future generations.

      What do you have against archaeologists from the future?

  2. what's to attribute specifically to CAN-SPAM? by jxyama · · Score: 4, Interesting
    could the increase be due to natural causes? that people are spamming more, regardless of CAN-SPAM?

    what's the fraction of spam that's sent which is CAN-SPAM compliant? how has that increased? (no i didn't RTFA since i haven't registered. does the article answer this?)

  3. Correlation != Causality by winkydink · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A fact that seems lost on most journalists these days.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:Correlation != Causality by Trepalium · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not just journalists, either. Anyone with an agenda loves to forget these things, too. If you look at their handy graph, it looks like fairly linear growth both before and after CAN-SPAM, so blaming the law may be a little out of order.

      --
      I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
    2. Re:Correlation != Causality by paulzeye · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, the article mentioned that there could be other reasons for the increase in spam. One example was filters blocking more spam, and spammers needing to send out more spam to maintain their levels. The article wasn't bad, you should try reading it.

    3. Re:Correlation != Causality by badasscat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A fact that seems lost on most journalists these days.

      And I see that R'ing TFA is still lost on most Slashdotters these days...

      This is not an article about how CAN-SPAM has increased spam. It is an article about how spam has increased despite CAN-SPAM. That is a very different thing. Several viewpoints are given from all sides involved on why it's happening, but at no time does the article itself suggest CAN-SPAM is the cause - only that it has not been an effective deterrent.

      I think that's something we can all agree on.

    4. Re:Correlation != Causality by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It depends what you are blaming on the CAN-SPAM act. If you are blaming it for increasing spam, then you are abusing statistics. If you are blaming it for failing to live up to its promise to reduce spam you are entirely justified - not only did it fail to reduce spam, it failed to reduce the rate of increase of spam.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  4. Correlation != Causation by jkujawa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's likely that spam would have increased anyway.

    1. Re:Correlation != Causation by suso · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, what this graph shows is the failure of the CAN-SPAM act to do anything.

  5. Slashdot, Jxyama. Jxyama, Slashdot. by LordPixie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Welcome to Slashdot. Where correlation does not mean causality for things like piracy, but does for things like legislation inducing spam. The trick is to remember that the evidence supports your position, and then figure out why.


    --LordPixie

  6. Oh well... by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A growing number of so-called bulletproof Web host services like Mr. Gillespie's offer spam-friendly merchants access to stable offshore computer servers - most of them in China - where they can park their Web sites, with the promise that they will not be shut down because of spam complaints.

    And this is exactly what we have been saying all along. No matter what laws are passed, no matter what we do to combat spam, the spammers will always find another way to make a buck.

    One of the spammers quoted in the article claimed that he didn't care about the lawsuits... He was making too much money to stop.

    If you're making too much money and they somehow make a law that actually works stick do you think that they are just going to go away? Yeah, I do, to other countries where those laws won't mean anything...

    Keep those firewalls banning entire countries (.kr and .br) and keep banning /16's and /8's until it is gone. The spammers are here to stay.

  7. Some solutions to spam by mgv · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've had this thought for a while, about what can be done about spam, and I have a couple of ideas for the /. community.

    1) Legislate so that merhandise sold using spam cannot legally demand payment (eg via visa/mastercard). Puts alot of pain onto these companies, but also would make it quite unattractive to sell stuff this way if you knew that the money you got could be reclaimed if it was demonstrated that you used spam as an advertising medium

    2) Employ teams of people to respond to SPAM (at a government level). SPAM works because they get a low return rate, but the people who do respond actually buy stuff. Thats what keeps it all going. If we made it so that a decent percentage of the replies were time wasters, the average company would suddenly have to employ lots of resources to deal with false responses. In effect, it would spam them. Suddenly its no longer as cheap to advertise this way.

    Just a couple of thoughts, but I'd love to see what the /. community thinks of these, or if anyone else has any ideas on what to do about spam. (And I don't mean better filters by this).

    Michael

    --
    There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
  8. Coincidental Correlation by kajoob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

    Definition:

    The name in Latin means "after this therefore because of this".
    This describes the fallacy. An author commits the fallacy when
    it is assumed that because one thing follows another that the
    one thing was caused by the other.

    Examples:

    (i) Immigration to Alberta from Ontario increased. Soon
    after, the welfare rolls increased. Therefore, the increased
    immigration caused the increased welfare rolls.

    (ii) I took EZ-No-Cold, and two days later, my cold
    disappeared.

    Proof:

    Show that the correlation is coincidental by showing that: (i)
    the effect would have occurred even if the cause did not
    occur, or (ii) that the effect was caused by something other
    than the suggested cause.

    References

    (Cedarblom and Paulsen: 237, Copi and Cohen: 101)

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
  9. IPTables really helps. by PornMaster · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just blocking China and Korean IP space from connecting to port 25 does wonders for reducing spam. See: http://www.okean.com/iptables/rc.firewall.sinokore a

  10. I think the issue is... by SirFozzie · · Score: 4, Informative

    That a great deal of the (uninformed) public and the (uninformed/bribed , take your choice) politicians thought this would at least put a dent in spam here in the US.

    Of course, the spammer scum (I know, don't need to add scum, spammer covers it) figure that it's a law for show, which it is..

    The top 10 spammers are responsible for something like 3 quarters of the spam sent. If Only half of those spammers were locked up in jail (where you have to admit they belong, because of their tactics, never mind the UCE itself).. spam would drop noticeably.

    The law needs to be improved. The law needs to have teeth.. and the law needs to chew some big time spammers.

    That's the only thing that'll slow things down.

    --
    People Talking in Movie shows.. people smoking in bed.. people voting republican.. GIVE THEM A BOOT TO THE HEAD!
  11. Saw this on Usenet by DSP_Geek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've been wondering this for a while, and the recent article on Slate - http://slate.msn.com/id/2101297 on the economic logic of executing worm writers - compels me to put pen to electron with the following Modest Proposal:

    Allow me to set forth a number of propositions:
    1) Spam is now 60% or more of all email in the world, and increasing monthly.
    2) The lost productivity costs to industry of dealing with spam is estimated to be from $10 billion to $20 billion yearly.
    3) There are about 100 to 200 spammers behind 90% of the world's spam.
    4) Thus each spammer can be estimated to cost industry globally around $100 million dollars.
    5) The EPA and DOT value a human life at between $3 million and $7 million dollars.
    6) Many people in the United States are underinsured medically. Some of them need expensive medical care they cannot afford, and therefore die as a result. Call the affordability threshold $100,000 to $1,000,000. If major ISPs and corporations could be ironbound to honour their word, admittedly no small task, then one could posit a regime where:
    a) The leading 1000 connectivity consumers place half their antispam spending in escrow
    b) Guido the Fish and Two Finger Tony get hired to smoke the top 100 spam offenders, reducing the need for antispam spending worldwide, and freeing the cash for:
    c) The escrowed funds then get used to save a large number of lives who would otherwise be lost due to pricy medical care.

    At this point, one must ask: What is a spammer's life worth? The economics of the situation means more people get saved than spammers blown away, therefore the sum total is that a greater good is served by the above scheme as more people survive with a higher quality of life than the status quo ante.

  12. Re:Here's the problem by gunnk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is something deeply ironic about a post stating incredulity that people would buy anything from spam... ... in a post with a sig to a "offerprizes.com" -- "free" iPod stuff.

    --
    Life is short: void the warranty.
  13. Re:Duh... by Atzanteol · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you believe that, then I have a scary statistic for you. Since that legislation passed more people have died of gunshots in the US! And my lucky red shirt prevents bear attacks with a 100% success rate!

    Corrolation != Cause & effect

    --
    "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

    - Charles Darwin
  14. Re:And the spammers seemed like such nice people by andy1307 · · Score: 5, Funny

    They should have called it CAN'T-SPAM....What do they expect from people when you tell them they can spam..

  15. Re:I THOUGHT TO I UP THE FUCK SHUT YOU TOLD by Rufus88 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Re:I THOUGHT TO I UP THE FUCK SHUT YOU TOLD

    Remember kids, Jolt Cola and HP calculators simply DO NOT mix!! Just say no.

  16. resources are out there... by EmagGeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I used to get easily 50 or more spams every day at one of my accounts... I implemented spamlist.org and now it's more like 5 or 10. Spamassassin on top of that cuts it to 1 to 5.

    They say that spam accounts for so much lost productivity, but they fail to mention that spam has spawned a whole new race of products and services that keep people employed. The Anti-Spam industry is thriving and contributing to world economic growth. As with everything, spam may be a nuisance, but it does have its benefits. As usual, regular users are caught in the crossfire.

    1. Re:resources are out there... by srNeu · · Score: 4, Informative
      They say that spam accounts for so much lost productivity, but they fail to mention that spam has spawned a whole new race of products and services that keep people employed. The Anti-Spam industry is thriving and contributing to world economic growth.


      That's like saying crime is good becuase it keeps cops employed, or that terrorism is good because it keeps the military employed. The point that is missing, is that the net cost of crime, terrorism, and spam typically is greater than the economics of the industries spawned to combat them.

      Yeah, I know, comparing spam to terrorism is a bit of a stretch, but I think the point is valid.