Slashdot Mirror
Has Microsoft 'Solved' Spam?
MsWillow writes to tell us the Seattle PI is running a story looking back at Bill Gates promise to have the spam problem "solved" in two years. Well, it looks like time is up, and the verdict is -- an emphatic "maybe". From the article: "Microsoft says it sees things differently. To "solve" the problem for consumers in the short run doesn't require eliminating spam entirely, said Ryan Hamlin, the general manager who oversees the company's anti-spam programs. Rather, he said, the idea is to contain it to the point that its impact on in-boxes is minor. In that way, Hamlin said, Gates' prediction has come true for people using the right tactics and advanced filtering technology."
Give me a break, I very distinctly remember Microsoft saying that with the advent of protected mode operating systems that virii would become a thing of the past. Hmmm, do I even need to say any more?
Microsoft has solved spam by ... erm... recommending all the strategies that people were already using before Microsoft set out to solve spam. A hearty thank you to Uncle Bill, then.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
You solve spam when it stops being sent, not when you stop recieving it.
These technologies wont work until they are nearly 100% effective. If even a few messages slip through to some users, some people will buy things from spam ads. Which is all the economic incentive a spammer needs. So all they do is hide the problem, not really solve it.
Bandwidth is still being wasted.
Michael
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
It's amazing to me how adept markedrones have become in spinning reality to fit their needs.
Spam still chokes mail gateways and causes everyone who uses email a hassle. You still can't advertize your email address. Upwards of 90% of the mail that reaches my mail server is spam, usually. Mail filters have been there for more than two years, though they've gotten better as spam has gotten better.
Spam volume has leveled off, but that's mostly because the system is already saturated.
If Microsoft really wanted to do something about spam, they'd fix the bugs and unthinkable design decisions that has allowed their software to be taken over and used to send it.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
I am to unpopular to get a lot of spam but the few I get on my gmail account all seem to be beginning with "Re:" clearly seeking to trick me into believing it is a reply.
Of course you could check the headers but these could easily be faked. In seen spams in the past that got through where I had real trouble figuring out where the fuck they came from. Some I even seemed to have sent myself.
The only real way to check it would be for hotmail to keep a track record of everyone you send mail to, add them to your adress book and then let those emails bypass your spam filters.
Silly Hotmail for not doing that. OH wait, they do! When you send an email via hotmail you are asked wether you want to add that person to your contact list. Most people don't bother.
My tip to you? Make it very clear that if they contact you via hotmail it may be filtered. Also check why you are being spam filtered. Is it based on your hostname or is the content of your email to spammy?
I know your pain, I dealt with it myself although in my case I am not depended on hotmail users so simply don't care that much. It is a lot of extra work but that is the cost of spam. No spam, no spam filters. It is something people often forget, it is not just the bandwidth cost and the time wasted sorting through spam but also the fact the real emails get lost in the mess. But don't worry, Bill Gates promised he would solve it. Has he ever lied before?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
That's not "solving" spam, that's masking it. My company uses RBLs at the external mail gateways to try and control the flow of spam into our network. 80% (200,000 of 250,000 daily messages) is directly blocked via this method... that bandwidth is still being used, but we halt the flood of the e-mail to our internal mail servers before it can be a burden to our users.
Of the mail that does get through, another 20% is still spam that didn't get blocked by an RBL so it has to pass through another anti-spam gateway (spamassassin) that does analysis and tagging of the message before passing it on to the internal mail server. Of the mail that gets through, roughly 5-10% is probably mismarked as not being spam when it is. That ends up being a shitload of mail that still gets through into a user's inbox that they have to review and delete. Spread that across thousands of users and you have a very real problem.
What we really need are vigilantes to go out and kill the spammers. We have their names and their addresses on the ROKSO list. Kill those 200 spammers and it'll prove a powerful lesson to the remaining ones that haven't popped up on the radar yet. People need to learn that if they spam they will die. Without that threat I'm afraid spam will only become an ever-increasing problem until there will come a point where e-mail is a completely useless medium to use for communications without redesigning the protocol.
So, anyone got an ex-con brother who doesn't care whether he lands back in prison or not? ;-)
Spam is often seen by companies as a method to make another profit. They come up with a box or a product that usually should be able to weed out any spam, and YOU, the customer and/or enterprise, should pony up some cash. This is not "solving spam", this is only getting rid of one of the symptoms of spam, leaving the problem relatively untouched. Messagelabs will continue to report that, how much is it these days?, percent of all e-mail traffic is either spam or virus-infected.
The Microsofts (and Ciscos, etc...) of this world probably think that once e-mail spam stops reaching peoples inboxes, the incentive for spammers to spam will vanish, and with it, the problem of spam. WRONG.
Marketing and salesforces all over the world have somehow gotten it into their heads that they have some God-given right to pester and harass consumers anytime, anyplace to beat them over the head with whatever they have around that should make you empty your pockets. And e-mail has been a relatively cheap way for them to harass us. But if that won't last, they will find newer, even more intrusive ways to get into our wallets^H^H^H^H^H^H^H hearts. Texting my mobile phone, calling me with product advertisements, harassing me while I'm shopping for groceries, Inserting picture-in-picture commercials during television, etc, etc, etc... I could go on for hours about how evil everything involving marketing and sales is, but hey, we all know that don't we?
My point is: Spam is not solved by either filtering messages, or making unsollicited commercial e-mail impossible. If Microsoft really wants to enhance the quality of my life, make sure I can for instance enjoy a half hour of television without being constantly interrupted by commercials, and keep those salesdroids away from my favorite supermarket, and away from my phone. Thank you.
It's ironic that in setting out to 'solve' spam, Microsoft all but destroyed the momentum around SPF, fracturing it into several different, incompatible implementations.
Well, two. Same basic idea, but attacking it from two different sides:
1) Execute all spammers.
2) Execute all the imbeciles who buy from them.
Spam is a human problem, not a technology problem. Think of it as the black market, only even sleazier.
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?