Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The New Yorker On Spam

Posted by kdawson on from the they-don't-like-it-one-bit dept.

aqk notes an article in the Aug. 6th New Yorker surveying the spam problem up-to-date. The New Yorker may not be exactly the MSM, but it is pretty influential. The author got only one fact wrong that I noticed: Canter and Siegel's seminal spam was propagated through Usenet and not email. Still, it's a good look at the history of spam and the scale of the problem today. The amount of spam that "spam king" Robert Alan Soloway, indicted under the CAN-SPAM Act, is accused of sending over a period of four years is now pumped out about every 30 seconds, around the clock, around the world.

33 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. Need More Exposure to Ideas and Methods by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Informative

    The New Yorker may not be exactly the MSM, but it is pretty influential. What were you hoping? That if it were mainstream media (MSM), it would bring to light the problems of spam? That it would influence the businessmen & marketers that make the spam?

    This article is a great short history on spam but no new information was presented to me here (and judging from the summary neither did it shed light on anything new to you).

    I laugh at either of these hopes because the average person already deals with spam daily (my relatives began reaching out for me on ways to censor that from my younger cousins years ago) and we have a different mindset than businessmen & marketers.

    The article mentions the epic article by Paul Graham entitled "A Plan for Spam." It may look long and arduous but I heavily recommend you read that. I will not forget reading that article nor will Slashdot. I think it helps more for the "mainstream media" to publish things like this for their readers.

    Yes, it has code in it. Yes, it requires a bit of a priori knowledge in some places (pun intended). But, you know, a lot of times the best stuff comes from outsiders and I personally think that newspapers should develop a 'tech section' where they can throw off the mittens & grade school knowledge that need to be on in order to handle your average reader. I know many newspapers have entire sections devoted to sports--sometimes even just one particular sport if it's in season! I've seen many newspapers have 'articles/ads' for new automobiles, why not new technology? I know Popular Mechanics is ... well, popular for lack of a better word so why aren't newspapers picking up on this and printing more tech-heavy articles? I guess all I can do is bitch about it because I don't have the same mindset as the people trying to sell the news.

    Which brings me back to an important point, you're not going to change anyone's mind. Everyone knows about it and if you think that Wallstreet businessmen are going to pick up the New Yorker & their jaw will drop when they read this article, you're sadly mistaken. If you think marketers will read this and say "My God, I need to start thinking about what I'm doing to the networks of the world," you're deluding yourself.

    What we need is an article that causes people to seriously ask themselves how we can keep e-mail free and uncensored while at the same time stopping spam. When I was asked by my aunt, they were concerned for their daughter using the internet and opening a spam message to see a guy with his legs split around a phallic-looking cactus in an ad for Viagra. I showed them how to use Thunderbird instead of Outlook Express and how to turn on junk mail filter. I also pointed out how vulnerable you leave yourself to spam if you print your e-mail in plain text on the internet. They never had a problem with it again.

    So while this article is informational, it does nothing practical for the reader. I realize--and I think a lot of people will agree with me--that the best way to stop spam is to stop clicking on it and show others how to do the same. The 0.001% response will dry up and spammers will drop off. Articles on how to configure yourself to spot spam would probably be the best thing mainstream media could print--sure would have helped my relatives!
    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Need More Exposure to Ideas and Methods by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know Popular Mechanics is ... well, popular for lack of a better word so why aren't newspapers picking up on this and printing more tech-heavy articles? I


      Because such articles don't sell advertising. Popular Mechanics, Popular Science, Scientific American, etc., can sell ads because they have nothing but tech-heavy, jargon-laiden articles, and so the advertisers know exactly who they are targeting.

      Newspapers are general-purpose publications, written for the widest audience possible. It's hard enough for them to sell ads these days without having to have specialized sections for the tech reader.

      That being said, newspapers should be trying to innovate, because if they don't, well...it's the death knoll for newspapers.
      --
      My blog
    2. Re:Need More Exposure to Ideas and Methods by KingSkippus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So while this article is informational, it does nothing practical for the reader. I realize--and I think a lot of people will agree with me--that the best way to stop spam is to stop clicking on it and show others how to do the same.

      This is definitely a start in the right direction, but it's not the whole story. I'm convinced that a massive part of the problem is that there's a widespread belief that spammers make millions of dollars.

      No doubt, a very few do. A very few have mansions and island retreats in the Bahamas. But these people are like the Michael Jordans of spammers, the people who have spent an incredible amount of time and effort into honing their spamming skills not just into an art, but a lucrative profession.

      The problem is that most spammers aren't the Michael Jordans of spam. They're just people who have heard that spammers make millions of dollars, and they want in on that action. They go out and download the latest scripts and fire off a few million e-mails. No one responds. So they fire off a few million more. After enough times, someone will respond, and they've made $20 bucks. Flush with the thought of new mansions, they fire off millions more. Whoops, that $20 was charged to a stolen card, so they're back to zero.

      The point is that the world has changed. Back in the day, there was a lot of money to be made from spam. Now, though, you have a very few scummy individuals who have made massive amounts of money. You have thousands of scummy individuals who think they can do they same thing, but fail miserably. It doesn't matter, though, all you need are the few who do make millions to keep the perception alive that spam = TONS of money, and you'll have people lining up to do it.

      What need to happen is that they need to stop focusing so much on the spam "kings" and go after the regular guys who send it out. The people without the million-dollar houses. The people who think that it doesn't hurt anything to fire off a few million e-mails to try to sell some Vigara (yes, I misspelled it deliberately). The press need to cover those stories too. (They really need to cover them more.) People stop seeing Bill the multi-millionaire spam king and start seeing Ted the worthless loser who was so desperate that he thought he could make a million dollars by sending spam.

      It's not enough to make spam unprofitable. People have to know it's unprofitable, and that when caught, they'll end up in jail for nothing.

    3. Re:Need More Exposure to Ideas and Methods by Otter · · Score: 2
      Yes, it requires a bit of a priori knowledge in some places (pun intended).

      Umm, what pun?

      Incidentally, the New Yorker is one of the most prestigious magazines in the world (albeit prestige derived much more from its past authorial and editorial quality than from anything it has now). I'm not sure why you and the submitter seem to think it's some sort of printed-out blog.

      --
      What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
    4. Re:Need More Exposure to Ideas and Methods by Philotechnia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let's step back from spam a second. If prostitution is the world's oldest profession, being a con artist is a close second. Before spam, these people were jumping out in front of cars to collect a paycheck, enticing people through telephone calls into shady business transactions, and so on. Spam is only a new form of an old trade. These people are always going to feed off the ignorant, the naive, the bleeding hearts, and the foolish. You will never regulate this kind of predatory behavior out of existence. All of us make bad choices. Some of those bad choices involve being the con artist, and some of those bad choices involve letting ourselves be duped. You can't stop this, you can only hope to contain it. That being said, the most effective approaches to spam are going to be those that assume the existence of the problem going forward - i.e. we can not stop nor get rid of spam - and manage it effectively while educating people against the tricks of the trade. I think spam is largely an overblown issue, that most competent sysadmins have tool sets that manage it very well, and that the average user is much more educated then us slashdotters assume. To put it briefly - spam is an overblown issue that just gives the government an excuse to get their grubby hands on our tubes. In Soviet Russia, the internet surfs you!

    5. Re:Need More Exposure to Ideas and Methods by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is definitely a start in the right direction, but it's not the whole story. I'm convinced that a massive part of the problem is that there's a widespread belief that spammers make millions of dollars.

      No doubt, a very few do. A very few have mansions and island retreats in the Bahamas. But these people are like the Michael Jordans of spammers, the people who have spent an incredible amount of time and effort into honing their spamming skills not just into an art, but a lucrative profession. Replace "spammers" with "drug dealers" and the statement is still true.

      In fact, I think many, if not most, illegal activities are driven by the same motivation. It's a lottery; people rationally know that their chances of 'winning big' (being the multi-millionaire spammer sitting in the Bahamas, or the drug dealer who becomes a rap star, or whatever) are ridiculously small. But they do it anyway, because they think they can be that one in ten million.

      I strongly suspect that if you look at the pay-per-hour of spamming, that it -- like drug dealing -- often turns out to be a sub-minimum-wage job. The people sending spam could probably make more money doing something legitimate, but they're pursuing the (irrational) hope that they can beat the odds and become extremely wealthy without working hard instead. (And, ironically, end up working much harder for the little that they do make.)
      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    6. Re:Need More Exposure to Ideas and Methods by Logic+and+Reason · · Score: 3, Informative

      A "death knoll"? Are the newspapers going to roll down it and hit their heads?

    7. Re:Need More Exposure to Ideas and Methods by EveLibertine · · Score: 2, Informative

      None, I'd wager. Mainly because "spiced ham" doesn't have an N in it.

  2. Proper verification of senders by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Spam wouldn't be such a problem if we had proper verification of senders. Whether that's through some central identity or whatever. I realize this idea is extremely unpopular and is not in the spirit of the original Internet, but heck, if you had to essentially have an ID that verified who you were and if you sent out spam, you'd lose it, how much less spam would there be?

    --
    My blog
    1. Re:Proper verification of senders by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you ask me, nothing less than the total removal of all spamming should be acceptable. Filtering doesn't get it because you still have all of this spam and zombies wasting terabits of bandwidth. And you have spammers pwning all these clueless idiots' Windows boxes, turning them into spam zombies. Remove the ability to send spam without screwing yourself, and you'll solve all of the spam-related problems. Filtering is like putting makeup on a facial wound. Removing the ability to send spam in the first place is the cure.

      --
      My blog
    2. Re:Proper verification of senders by Philotechnia · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not just that this idea is unpopular, in my mind it is untenable. The nature of a decentralized system such as the internet is such that it, by its nature, resists control. So you want to require every internet user to have an ID for verification purposes? How would that be enforced internationally? It only takes one China or Nigeria to fail to comply, and the solution becomes worthless. Even if 100% compliance was possible, how long would it take for the system to be hacked? Imagine waking up one morning and finding yourself without internet access because someone else had been spamming using your credentials. I would contend that, if spam is a crime, there would need to be a larger burden of proof than simply seeing someone's credentials attached to an email. The lack of centralized control of the internet simply forces us to face the reality of human nature - when not controlled, some of us will choose to do good of our own devices, and some of us will choose to do bad. I rather enjoy this kind of environment - it allows the true nature of individuals to sally forth, it shows who is to be trusted and respected and who is to be avoided, and it grants free expression without forcing us into a cookie-cutter mold that some centralized authority would impose upon us. With all due respect, if you seek the kind of solution you state, move to China. I hear their network is very secure. Good luck logging into slashdot, though.

    3. Re:Proper verification of senders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The person that ran the linux systems at school showed me the daily log for spam blocked once. It normally reaches 10,000+ a day. He said he contemplated turning it off one time if another user bitched about the 10 spam emails that got through on some days to most user accounts. So if the number of messages that get past the filter is less than 20, even if it fluctuates, is still high quality filtering.

    4. Re:Proper verification of senders by spikedvodka · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you ask me, nothing less than the total removal of all spamming should be acceptable. Filtering doesn't get it because you still have all of this spam and zombies wasting terabits of bandwidth. And you have spammers pwning all these clueless idiots' Windows boxes, turning them into spam zombies. Remove the ability to send spam without screwing yourself, and you'll solve all of the spam-related problems. Filtering is like putting makeup on a facial wound. Removing the ability to send spam in the first place is the cure. Sounds great... where do I sign up? but seriously. There are a number of problems with "Removing the ability to send spam in the first place"
      1) What exactly is spam? -- Some people would say that spam is any e-mail they don't want. Others will say any e-mail they didn't ask for. yet others point to the dictionary and say "unsolicited usually commercial e-mail sent to a large number of addresses"
      This brings up the first problem... if we go with the last (and most technical) of those definitions, all a spammer has to do is start to "properly" personalize the messages (for some value of personalize)
      If we go with the first, how can you check on the sending end if the recipient wants it?
      if we go with the second, what about when I want to send e-mail to a friend I've lost touch with? he didn't ask for the e-mail, therefore my message is "spam"

      Even if we, as the GP suggested, impose a technical restriction on e-mail such that it has to be authenticated as to who it's from, all that does is make the filtering easier. What is going to prevent the dedicated spammer from "registering" a new identity? where would everybody's identities be registered? would you trust a centralized registry of "registered senders"? for some reason i think not.

      I've heard suggestions of using a "web-of-trust" method of "registering identities", but even with that idea, you're going to end up with many separate webs. and bog help you if you want to send e-mail between the webs, you'd be effectively unknown, and thus declared "SPAM".

      All to often the way it seems with technology is that we put band-aids on everything. Endless patch-Tuesdays, etc. and that when a new system is proposed and agreed upon it (a) takes forever to get off the ground ... IPv6 anyone?, or (b) is fored to be backwards compatible, which defeats the purpose.

      Maybe I'll have to think of an algorithm to dynamically and auto-magically create a positive, and negative web-of-trust, both for senders and for servers... but that's more for another time
      --
      I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
    5. Re:Proper verification of senders by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That will never happen. Never.

      Reason? Simple. Who would immediately lose their "internet rights"? Clueless people with spam sending trojans. The same people that pretty much everyone who earns money through the internet loves. ISPs love them, because they use little bandwidth and don't care if their connection speed and reliability is far below anything advertised. Internet shops love them, because they rather buy crap online than trying to find it for free. Governments love them for as long as they're occupied with internet games and internet gambling, they don't ponder looking at the real world and what runs wrong.

      This won't happen. For pretty much the same reasons why nobody will ever be held responsible if he is unable to keep his computer malware free. Pol Pot already knew it, and our politicians catch up, it's easier to govern fools than it is to govern people who are willing to learn. Learning leads to questioning, questioning leads to opposition.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Proper verification of senders by gatzke · · Score: 3, Funny


      Ask your friends to stop using subjects like:

      "You will be able to penetrate deeper"

      "15% discount automatically on BOTH watches!"

      At least in gmail they are still around, and gmail will let you search for them easily. I am more worried about my university bouncing legit email as spam and I never see it... No way to find those.

  3. Not MSM? by spikedvodka · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How is the New Yorker *NOT* MSM? it's practically on every newsstand from here to Moscow (and yes, I have traveled that far, and seen it there) It's lasted for over 80 years so far and has won more than just a handful of nationally and internationally recognized awards for journalism.

    If anything the New Yorker is a good way to reach people that might not be quite as technically proficient or knowledgeable.

    --
    I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
    1. Re:Not MSM? by anti-pop-frustration · · Score: 3, Funny
      MSM ?

      The three letter acronym MSM can refer to:

      Maastricht School of Management, in Maastricht, the Netherlands

      Metal-semiconductor-metal junction.

      Miami Sound Machine

      Men who have sex with men

      Million Skirted Men, a movement advocating men's right to wear skirts.

  4. Suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    I run a mail server for our 5 person business. I left at 8pm last night and got in at 6:45am this morning. During that time, 191 messages where blocked due to the content of the headers. 1,799 connection attempts where rejected due to being on rbls or part of my block list(182,910 entries). 351 pieces of spam still got through that and got caught by the filter which I went through by hand to verify that none of it was valid for users. I just finished going through everyones inboxes to make sure nothing got through. Wanna know how many valid pieces of mail for all 5 users? 17. 17 out of the potential 2,341 attempted mail deliveries within a 11 hour time span.

    Just because your inbox doesn't have a lot of spam doesn't mean someone out there isn't making sure you see it that way.

  5. King Robert Alan Soloway? by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Funny

    Who died and elected him Spam King? (Not objecting, just hopeful that the previous Spam King died.)

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  6. It'll be hard to change minds. by iknownuttin · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Which brings me back to an important point, you're not going to change anyone's mind.

    I'm in the middle of starting up a small business and was talking to someone about marketing. This individual (Not an in-duh-vidual - a Ph.D.) suggested that I send out mass emails. I told him that I can't do that because I'll be a spammer and my ISP will yank my account. He then mentioned that they're are ways to mask my origins. I said if I get caught doing that, I'll be in even more trouble. Besides, I DON'T want to be a spammer.

    My point? Spamming has become so standard and everyday that people don't even give it a second look now and just consider it an annoyance at worst. The only people who really care are those of us in IT.

    --
    I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
    1. Re:It'll be hard to change minds. by RobBebop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I hope your friend's Ph.D isn't in a computer science related field. It seems logical that an acceptance of this would infect the rest of the world, though. Many businesses have enjoyed moderate success by sending out "mass-mail" through the USPS for years.

      In regards to your other point...

      Spamming has become so standard and everyday that people don't even give it a second look now and just consider it an annoyance at worst.

      I have found it increasingly annoying dealing with people who run pirated software because "they couldn't afford to pay for it". This "don't give it a second thought" mentality is, IMHO, something that should be reversed. Just because technology enables somebody to do something... it doesn't mean they should.

      --
      Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
    2. Re:It'll be hard to change minds. by gnunick · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Stealing bread when you can't afford it (and no one's giving it away) is difficult to condemn.

      Running pirated software because you can't afford it? Well, since you can get almost any software you could possibly need both free and legally, you're apparently either uninformed or not the sort of person to take responsibility for your own actions and choices (just like a spammer).

      --
      I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious. --Albert Einstein
  7. They try to send, but don't really succeed by badger.foo · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The amount of spam that "spam king" Robert Alan Soloway, indicted under the CAN-SPAM Act, is accused of sending over a period of four years is now pumped out about every 30 seconds, around the clock, around the world.


    Well, they're trying to send a lot, but with a proper setup at and around your mail server, you will not be seeing much of it anyway.


    Simple greylisting helps a lot, supplemented with greytrapping-generated blacklists (with 24 hour expiry) it's even fun to watch. The last 2-3 percent that actually makes it through to be seen by content filtering gets converted back to free electrons.


    I've had a series of blog entries over at bsdly.blogspot.com about this and the conclusion is clear - with a competent system administrator, Spam is a solved problem (Links to other refs inside, follow links).

    --
    -- That grumpy BSD guy - http://bsdly.blogspot.com/
    1. Re:They try to send, but don't really succeed by seebs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't think an ever-increasing percentage of my bandwidth and CPU time going into spam filtering counts as a "solved" problem.

      How much time should I spend on becoming the hypothetical "competent" sysadmin? How much should I have to pay someone else to do it for me?

      Tell you what. You provide the salary for me to hire someone reasonably competent to keep filters up to date, and send me a couple of fairly powerful servers, and pay for a second dedicated T1 to do nothing but process email, and I'll back you and claim that spam is "solved". By you. And I'll suggest that everyone go ask you to "solve" it for them too.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    2. Re:They try to send, but don't really succeed by badger.foo · · Score: 2, Informative

      You seem to be lumping several very different techniques together, thinking it's all about content filtering.

      Content filtering costs a lot of cpu, greylisting and stuttering (replying 1 byte at the time) costs our end very little.

      The cited techniqes are likely to save you significant costs by discarding the obvious cases at the gateway and letting your computation heavy content filtering deal with five percent or less of the load it is handling at the moment.

      All I can say is read the articles. You really don't need that kind of extra gear you are imagining.

      --
      -- That grumpy BSD guy - http://bsdly.blogspot.com/
    3. Re:They try to send, but don't really succeed by seebs · · Score: 2, Informative

      You know, I actually do use greylisting. And a lot of other techniques, too.

      They all add up, and they really do require a lot of extra hardware.

      Do you have any clue what percentage of the bandwidth I pay for is going to the initial TCP packets from hosts I drop immediately? I'll give you a hint: It's a lot.

      I guess... I've heard serious discussion from people at large sites of what goes into their spam filtering. I'd guess they're not morons; in many cases, I know that they are quite intelligent, and have a lot of experience, and put a lot of time into learning about this stuff.

      They think it's expensive. Hell, the mere fact that there are people who are putting in full-time jobs at this proves that it's expensive.

      It's not solved. As long as it's taking a measurable number of people working full-time to "solve" it, it's not solved. It'll be solved when we no longer have to spend huge chunks of bandwidth on it, no longer lose mail to it, no longer have mail delayed by it -- you do know that greylisting often delays legitimate mail, right? -- and otherwise no longer have to pay for it. Until then, it's not solved, we just have workarounds that are more tolerable than not having the workarounds.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    4. Re:They try to send, but don't really succeed by badger.foo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not solved. As long as it's taking a measurable number of people working full-time to "solve" it, it's not solved. It'll be solved when we no longer have to spend huge chunks of bandwidth on it, no longer lose mail to it, no longer have mail delayed by it -- you do know that greylisting often delays legitimate mail, right?

      Unfortunately, the age of innocence is past, and I have another shocking revelation or you:

      There is no silver bullet.

      Spam is a solved problem to a very large extent. We are successfully turning essentially all of it away with minimal annoyance to others.

      Greylisting does delay delivery of the initial message from a new correspondent, but it is certainly no workaround - rather it's all about being a bit pedantic about adhering to standards. The workarounds are the odd things you need to do in order to compensate for poor configurations elsewhere. And of course you will need to scale your infrastructure according to expected loads.

      We will never have a perfect world, and any method you can devise will have a non-zero error rate. These are the simple facts of life.

      There are necessarily costs too, but by using available tools intelligently we minimize the costs.

      --
      -- That grumpy BSD guy - http://bsdly.blogspot.com/
  8. "Web of trust" won't work. by khasim · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Check out TFA. They even mention Hotmail.

    Hotmail is one of the world's largest providers of e-mail service, with two hundred and eighty-five million registered accounts in more than two hundred countries. "We filter them all, and that takes huge amounts of computer processing power and Internet bandwidth, and it requires us to work constantly to keep the numbers from getting worse," Scarrow said. "We do this to minimize the impact on our customers, but it's a hell of a job."

    Yet about half the spam that gets through my system comes from HotMail and GMail.

    And let's not forget the cute ads that Microsoft appends to outgoing Hotmail messages. So, someone sends spam through Hotmail, which ends up with the ad attached ... and it gets reported as spam ... so when a legitimate message comes through from Hotmail it also has the ad and so it gets flagged as spam by SpamAssassin.

    That's great. The spam gets through and the legitimate messages are blocked. Maybe Microsoft could have put a bit more thought into their process? No? Getting the ads out is too important?

    Here's a thought. How about Microsoft and Google throttle the outbound connections on their servers? One message every 5 seconds? And take an account off-line AND ALL ITS PENDING MESSAGES if they get a complaint? Google has smart people. I'm sure they could work out an automatic arrangement with the larger anti-spam sites.

    The only "web of trust" you can really trust is your own white list.

    I'd rather focus on the opposite. Identifying ranges that are 99.9%+ likely to be spammers. Like most of the home accounts on Comcast and Verizon and such.
  9. No. It comes from their servers. by khasim · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You mean appears to come from HotMail and GMail.

    Nope. They can't fake the IP address if you don't have pipelining turned on. It's coming from their IP's.

    Of course, very little stops spammers from also opening a ton of "legitimate" free accounts and spamming using those, but they can (sometimes) get tracked and shut down...

    That's the problem. You cannot "trust" Hotmail or GMail because they ARE used by spammers.

    And there is no technological reason why they could not address that issue. They know that spammers will open accounts with them. Yet they take no steps to mitigate that. Even limiting the outbound emails from each account would help. And having an automated process for reporting and blocking spam from them would pretty much solve the rest of the problem with them.
  10. How much does spam cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    No kidding. I admin a medium sized ISP. We have 8 (soon to be 9) distributed servers dedicated to email.

    3 load balanced e-mail filtering appliances, at the Internet facing edge. (Basically, BSD boxes running postfix, spamassasin, clamav, policyd, DCC checks, RBL and a few other checkers and daemons I'm forgetting.) They get about 90% of our spam.

    2 load balanced postfix boxes, running policyd on our outgoing mail, they will greylist any naughty customers with a zombie that have sent to much. Also, they do inbound user verification with LDAP, if spam has BCCed an invalid recipient or two, reject. Add another layer of anti-virus on the way to the customers. This catches another 8-9%. I'm guessing around 1% gets through.

    1 DCC server, because we exceeded the threshold for being able to use free DCC long ago. (I'll admit it's a bit under used.)

    1 MTA running exim for the hosted domains. This has spamassain, and a few other services, supplementary to everything in front of it. I'd say it gets most of the rest for those with hosted domains.

    1 big bad 8x processor pop server that runs webmail and pop for the customers. It does no spam checking, because it could never handle the load, just stores what we think is not spam for the customers, around 25,000 accounts.

    By comparison, we need one (1) production, not counting backups, provisioning server. It handles minor things like DHCP for 15,000 customers.

    Now you have an idea on what your ISP spends its money and resources on. There is no small industry selling you solutions to fight the SPAM.

  11. Address book doesn't help? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Have you put both the "From" and the "Reply-To" addresses on the mailing list into your Gmail address book? I've found that seems to keep mail in my Inbox instead of in Spam. (I think it's only the "From" that matters, but you can put both in there to be sure.)

    I'm not sure it's an automatic 100% non-spam rating, but it does seem to be worth some points at some point in Google's filtering process.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  12. Re:Track them and arrest them. by achbed · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Two problems with this.
    1) You assume that all nations want to cooperate and, as you so eloquently put it, "nail their collective goolies to a wall". That is very far from the truth. If we can't get a universal agreement about terrorists, how can we get a universal agreement about spammers/scammers? The only way one is going to be able to do this consisently is by doing vigilante justice - and then avoiding any law enforcement that wants to take you out for taking matters into your own hands. Good luck with that!
    2) You also assume that "sending the heavies round" means that the "heavies" and the spammers are not colluding. I'll be willing to bet that many illegal spam operations are now owned by the same "entrepreneurs" that own the "heavies" you are referring to. Any bets on if they would be willing to beat down their own people for a few bucks? Many fewer bucks than their spam operation is bringing in?

  13. The *original* source has a great history of spam by geekotourist · · Score: 2, Informative
    This article is a great short history on spam

    The author's source material is a great short history of spam, too: I didn't read anything new on the early history of spam in the New Yorker because I'd already read it elsewhere. Yet the New Yorker author only obliquely referenced his source materials when he mentions Brad Templeton (EFF chairman, etc.) via a quote. If I was the editor for that article I'd have pushed for more research credit to be given.

    Brad Templeton's collection of essays on spam includes: