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.
Or you can move the goalpost in the middle of the game. That's easier.
Eliminating spam means eliminating spam!
Curb CO2 emissions: Kill yourself today!
I scoff at Bill Gates' "efforts" to reduce spam. What has he done precisely?
Probably just deferred the responsibility to one of his underlings. Aside from that, he talks about crazy methods such as deciding how much money the sender has to pay you before you open the e-mail.
Gates has plenty of articles which detail how much he hates spam. Anyone can sit down and write this, but Gates gets the high exposure interviews with the Wall Street Journal and the AP.
Gates is all talk. If you want to read some articles from some very interesting people, check out A Plan for Spam by Paul Graham. It talks about simple ways to write Bayesian spam filters and does a very good job at describing how they work. Another valuable member of the anti-spam community is Jonathon Zdziarski who has written many books about how to actually get rid of spam. You can also read the Slashdot interview with him.
My work here is dung.
Customer with a hotmail address emails me with a question.
I hit reply and give them my answer
A few days later they write me again asking why I haven't responded.
I reply again. They don't get my response. They then get pissed and I lose the sale.
The problem is that Hotmail errs on the side of filtering out too much when you can't even reply to a hotmail user. And many people don't even bother to check their "spam" folders.
I'm no computer engineer, but I would think that merely replying to an email should make it through a spam filter 100% of the time. It's amazing that a company like Microsoft can't hire engineers competent enough to figure that out.
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.
Step 1: Make outrageous promise
Step 2: Make sure the media pick it up and spread it around
Step 3: Do nothing
Step 4: Redefine what you meant 2 years on
Step 5: Profit!
A bit more complicated than the underwear gnomes' business plan, but much more profitable.
Work like no one is watching. Dance like you've never been hurt. Make love like you don't need the money.
Microsoft and Google and Symantec are not the warriors on the spam battle front. They can do nothing to properly reduce the costs of fighting spam (the costs that the end user doesn't see but definitely pays for). The warriors are us, geeks and techies who know the real solution.
Spam continues to be produced because it is generating income. I like to don my black hat and look at the spam forums and see that there still are people making boatloads of money for little investment. Investing US$10,000 in a spam campaign has net some people US$50,000 in a few months!
Why does spam generate income? Users continue to click. I have e-mail relationships with people all over the world on a daily basis, and it really blows my mind how some very bright people seem to be Internet morons. I honestly believe that the great majority of the world's Internet users have no idea how to properly browse or read e-mail.
Turning off images is a huge step in the right direction (I had already told many people to turn them off if the e-mail programmed allowed it). What other things have you told your friends or family to do to prevent the dreaded "my computer is so slow" phone call? How many times have you EVER clicked spam? The ratio is the answer to the question: teach others proper Internet usage techniques.
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?
How would you know that an email is a reply?
Using the In-Reply-To: header flag, perhaps? It uses the unique Message-Id. That's how threading works (in good MUAs - Thunderbird has it's own very very strange message threading). Save the message-id for outgoing e-mails, for each user. When a message is received, match the In-Reply-To header against the list of Message-Ids. If it's there, whitelist.
Easy.
:wq!