Email Servers Will Choke, Says Spamhaus

Rub3X writes, "The legal battle between antispam organization Spamhaus and e360 Insight is heating up. Spamhaus has a user base of around 650 million, and its lists block some fifty billion spam emails per day, according to the project's CEO Steve Linford. Spamhaus CIO Richard Cox says the immediate issue is that if the domain is suspended, the torrent of bulk mail hitting the world's mail servers would cause many of them to fail. More than 90% of of all email is now spam, Cox says, and he doubts that servers worldwide would be able to handle a ten-fold increase in traffic." Others estimate Spamhaus's blocking efficacy as closer to 75%; by this metric spam would increase four-fold, not ten-fold, if Spamhaus went unavailable. The article paraphrases CIO Cox as saying that the service will continue "even if there is a short-term degradation."

Comments

I say let the spam come

[pembo13]

It would be interesting if all email server admins suddenly opened the flood gates for a day or two. Maybe then the general population will gain a better appreciate of the scale of the matter.

I still think they 3360 guys just look and smell like spammers. That spamhaus aggrees just adds to this conclusion. Here's what seems to amount to the spam histroy of the "plantiff".

Re:I say let the spam come

[jemenake]

It would be interesting if all email server admins suddenly opened the flood gates for a day or two. Maybe then the general population will gain a better appreciate of the scale of the matter.

Which is why I'm surprised Spamhaus doesn't just "simulate" what life would be like without them... before we're without them. Dispense with the predictions of how much spam will increase and what fate will befall the servers. Just shut off your service for a bit and wait for everyone to offer you their firstborn. Enron did it with California's electricity and it worked like a charm.

Re:I say let the spam come

[Jekler]

Most users probably don't remember the rate of spam before filtering was common for a number of reasons:

1. The rise in internet usage since the year 2000 indicates, at best, only 1/3rd of the internet population could remember the rate of spam before filtering was common.
2. The rise of email usage indicates a large population of the people who were connected pre-filtering weren't using email.
3. The current volume of spam per person is at least triple what it was pre-filtering.

Most of us who were using the internet before spam filtering became so common have not seen what today's volume of spam would look like unfiltered. Assuming spam per person has tripled, anyone who was getting 20 spam per day pre-filtering would be looking at 60 spam per day now.

It would be a much deserved wake up call if spam filter companies were to shut down operations for a few days. It's obvious that the bodies overseeing this case think of Spamhaus as little more than a novelty. I think Spamhaus needs to send a crystal clear message, and perhaps the most effective way to do that would be to show the world how green the other side of the fence really is.

Re:I say let the spam come

[dheltzel]

I'm surprised Spamhaus doesn't just "simulate" what life would be like without them

It's easy to explain why they don't do this. They know that only clueless email admins rely only on an RBL for Spam control. Only the "Spamhaus faithful" would get clobbered with the extra Spam and they would have to switch to a different method or lose their jobs. This would be a sure way to kill off your customer base by proving empiracally why a single point of failure in Spam detection is a bad idea.

I've seen as much bad behavior from the RBL maintainers as I have from the spammers, so I only use an RBL as a final check to hold email that is on an RBL but otherwise passes through the filter. The (very few) held emails are almost always legitimate. The only reason I even bother to hold them is to keep an eye on what's going on and kill the final few Spam emails. The system I use for my employer has an almost perfect rate of rejection. Most of our users get fewer than 10 Spam messages a year! I get a lot of questions from co-workers about how to deal with Spam in their personal accounts because we do such a great job of dealing with it in their work accounts.

I know the Spamhous fanboys will take offense at this post. My only comment is that you are free to use an RBL as your only Spam control if you wish, just as I am free to use what I consider to be better methods. Good luck to you if Spamhous ever goes dark for any reason -- you're gonna need it.

Re:I say let the spam come

[jcr]

So, who has standing to file a complaint against this spammer?

He lied on the jurisdiction issue, and if that takes Spamhaus off the network, then millions of us suffer economic damage from the result of his perjury.

Anyone in Illinois want to register a class action against the son of a bitch?

-jcr

Re:I say let the spam come

[arivanov]

I have.

Here is the result:

Spamhaus gives only further sub-5% improvement on top of greylisting with a positive feedback loop at delivery/user report level. With relay level content filtering feeding into the feedback loop that will be down to under 3%. Greylisting on its own does 90%+.

The CPU cost of greylisting is not that much higher compared to DNS blacklists (and on a large site you can dynamically gate greylists into a local DNS greylist zone for distribution). In fact it is less if you form temporary firewall reject lists from your greylisting database.

So the answer is: technically Spamhaus is full of shit and the floodgates will not open. On most well managed sites it will be just another day. A bit more SPAM, but not a lot. At most it will make admins tune feedback loops into grey/black lists a bit better.

Move along people, nothing to see here. Spamhaus should stop dragging the rest of the internet into the stupid internet governance battle which is not for them to fight in the first place. I already commented on their position on this issue in past Slashdot posts on it.

Spamhaus should stop talking BS and move their operations to the same domain as their legal country of residence.

Re:I say let the spam come

[grub]

Most of us who were using the internet before spam filtering became so common have not seen what today's volume of spam would look like unfiltered.

So much of it happens server side the end users would have no idea as to the amount. My home mail server which handles a handful of users gives me these stats. and this is just for the 8.5 hours of "Today":

(spamhaus) Listed at Spamhaus: 655
(sorbs.net) Listed at dnsbl.sorbs.net: 146

So that's just over 800 pieces of crap for today (so far) Those are server-side filters, not client side.

Re:I say let the spam come

[rgriff59]

I remember an old adage that said "Turn About is Fair Play."

As much as I'd like to suggest tar and feathers as a fitting punishment for e360, I believe that is generally frowned on these days, so I doubt it would work. However, I doubt that a class action would really amount to much more than some attorney chest thumping of motion, counter motion. Perhaps a different tact is needed?

Maybe we could take a lesson from the spammer. They cause lots of small problems that add up to a huge drain, and maybe they get really lucky, and make a score. Adopt the same strategy. Consider a coordinated, but arguable separate, set of law suits in multiple jurisdictions against e360insight for the damage they cause. No class actions, as that would give one single point to defend. For this to have the desired effect, it must drain the resources in many small pieces. Imagine if, say for example, on March 16, 2007, there were 50,000 independent suits filed across the country by the victims of the e360 spam. Each one could be for a small amount of damages. The important point is make them all independent, and resist a class designation. Imagine the burden of defending these. Imagine the default judgements if any got lost in the shuffle. Imagine the statement that would make to those who abuse not only the email systems, but our courts as well...

Re:I say let the spam come

[mrball_cb]

Spamhaus gives only further sub 5% improvement on top of greylisting

You assume that your customers won't leave en masse because "my sister just sent an email and it didn't get here 30 seconds later". When you tell them that cannot be changed, they will leave and go to someone who accepts and delivers email instantly. It doesn't matter that it is in their best interests, they will still leave. We can't do greylisting for that exact reason.

Here's what kind of stats SpamHaus does for us:
    Blocked from SpamHaus (hijacked cable/dsl modem): 160039
    Blocked from SpamCop RBL: 7869
    Blocked from internal RBL: 1145

So before even seeing content, we blocked 169053 connection attempts, and there could have been multiple emails on each connection. After all that being blocked, we still accepted 55K emails:
    Inbound per day totals: 55373
    Detected and rejected as spam 37677
    Detected and rejected as virus 254

and there was STILL 38K emails detected and blocked as spam. And in the real world, some of that 17442 emails (55373 - 37677 - 254) was spam too. If we open the floodgates and previously blocked email starts getting delivered, likely it would be about 100K emails that get past the spam filters, of which all additional email is guaranteed to be spam, so 80%+ of that delivered email would be spam.

Now, multiply those numbers times 4 and that is the load we would have to deal with, and we are a small operator compared to a lot of ISPs. In addition, we would likely have to get one or two additional machines to handle the increased spam scanning load. It does nothing but COST US MONEY to shut down SpamHaus service.

Before anybody points out the obvious, our SMTP Auth users are exempted from the RBLs if authentication succeeds.

One thing that I've not seen anybody mention though is how simple it is to make your nameservers forward spamhaus.org requests to their nameservers. Problem solved.

Someone please tell me they have an alternative

[Kris_J]

I am so ready to walk away from email. I just need someone to point me to a workable replacement.

Two lists needed

[Ed Avis]

Maybe some legal problems could be avoided by having two lists. One, a list of spammers. The second list is people who are not spammers (cough) who have threatened or engaged in legal action to be removed from the first list. In other words a list of plaintiffs in court cases. Mail server admins could choose whether to use one list or both for blocking mail.

Re:I work for a company...

[Silver Sloth]

I don't normally reply to AC posts, and, as this is a 'me too' post it will probably be modded redundant, but...

I can back up the AC's statement. I work for an IT multinational and our e-mail servers run close to the edge. If we were to see a significant increase in e-mail levels, be it x4 or x10, or even x2, our e-mail system would grind to a halt. We, along with every organisation have become totally dependant on e-mail. For example, one of our customers requires that financial information it sent to the Bank of England by close of play every day. It is sent using (encrypted) e-mail. A delay of a few hours would give us major headaches. And yes, we could use alternative methods but it would take some time to put these in place.

If the preditions came true it would be bad for us.

Buggy post

[TapeCutter]

Meanwhile the rest of the planet will treat an unenforcable court order from this judge about as seriously as they would a court order from the judge in this case.

GP was missing the link above.

Spamhaus have their problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the comments I've read so far seem to be in favour of Spamhaus, and while I agree that they do some good work, they are not all good. Specifically, they seem over keen to blacklist address ranges without providing any proof, and very reluctant to unblock these.

I work for an ISP providing dedicated server hosting & colocation. Recently a couple of our customers contacted us saying that they had appeared on the Spamhaus blacklist, and were consequently having trouble sending e-mails. They claimed that they had not involved in any spamming activities, and that this listing was therefore incorrect. We found out that Spamhaus had blacklisted a range of our IP addresses (specifically a /27 subnet), and their explanation was that we were hosting someone from their ROKSO list.

While it was indeed true that we were hosting a server for this person, Spamhaus had a) blocked an address range larger than the IP addresses involved with this spammer, and b) would not offer any proof that the spammer had been using the server we host for him to involve in any spamming activities. When we contacted them, they refused to unblock this range unless we suspended the account of this spammer (again without providing any proof of activities conducted from our network that would breach our TOS), even though they acknowledged that the range they were blocking involved innocent customers. For us to suspend him at the request of Spamhaus would have been US breaking our contract with him, as there was no indication that he had violated our AUP (which DOES prohibit involvement with spam).

When we refused to break our contract with our customer at the request of a third party (perfectly acceptable position imho!), Spamhaus said that if they blocked any of our customers in future, they would blacklist our entire network (which is a considerable amount of addresses). This is unacceptable in my view, they are essentially trying to hold us to ransom without providing any proof of activities. When talking with some other ISPs, we heard of similar stories. In one case, the ISP concerned suspended the spammer's account and contacted Spamhaus to have their blacklist removed, and were told that "due to under-staffing, Spamhaus would not be able to remove the blacklist entry for a couple of days. however, if they would like to make a donation to spamhaus, they would remove the entry much sooner".

To reiterate my earlier point, Spamhaus does provide a valuable service, there's not much doubt of this. But they way in which they are organised leaves a lot to be desired!

Re:Interesting legal argument.

[phooka.de]

The interesting legal argument here is, that by pointing out that the case is (among other flaws) on a level of jurisdiction that surely can't be right, you voluntarily subject yourself to whatever that legal systems likes to come up with next.

The next interesting legal argument here is, that the judge seems not to be a judge, but a referee. His job is not to descide what's right and what's wrong, but to make sure the rules of the game are observed. They can't even descide that the case does not belong before them.

The last interesting legal argument is, that if the one who's sued doesn't appear, the one who sues gets all they want. Hell, they should have asked for a billion or two along with eevryone working for spamhaus and their children, relatives and frieds as slaves (for the next 7 generations). By the logic of the US legal system, they might just have won that as well.

Would I have appeared bofore them? And let the spammer force me and my non-profit organization to accept to be financially crippled by the spammer's for-profit ressources? No, I'd have shown them the finger as well (living in Europe and feeling there's a lot of nice areas for vacation that are on this side of the pool, so I don't really need to visit the US).

Re:Trying to block spam is like...

[joto]

Ok, so let's make being stupid illegal. Your post was, IMO, right on track up to this.

For some reason, most people do not consider that as a realistic possibility. Personally, I think it should be illegal to be stupid, in a lot more situations than it is today.

This isn't exactly revolutionary. People are already being put into jail, for buying stolen goods, if the police can demonstrate that "they should have known it was stolen". And if you drive over some schoolkids while fondling with your car-radio, you are still guilty of murder. And if you are a surgeon and kills a patient through malpractice, you are also in deep trouble.

The society needs more legislation against stupidity, not less. It's too easy to excuse away all the damage you have done, by putting up the "I'm stupid" excuse. So, yes, let it be punishable for up to n years in jail, to through stupid or uninformed actions, create life more profitable for spammers.