Slashdot Mirror
100 Email Bouncebacks - Welcome to Backscattering
distefano links to a story on Computerworld, excerpting: "E-mail users are receiving an increasing number of bounceback spam, known as backscatter, and security experts say this kind of spam is growing. The bounceback e-mail messages come in at a trickle, maybe one or two every hour. The subject lines are disquieting: 'Cyails, Vygara nad Levytar,' 'UNSOLICITED BULK EMAIL, apparently from you.' You eye your computer screen; you're nervous. What's going on ? Have you been hacked? Are you some kind of zombie botnet spammer? Nope, you're just getting a little backscatter — bounceback messages from legitimate e-mail servers that have been fooled by the spammers."
This story was preceded less than a month ago:
https://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/08/2258246
I had a bunch of these back then, now they are happening again. Here is some information about the subject.
http://spamlinks.net/prevent-secure-backscatter.htm
You should only get NDRs from your own ISP, as I undestand it. The other mail admins are being fooled by your spoofed return address, and should know better.
Where's the news here? I've been getting these for years. It's so bad that I filter bounce messages to a separate account on the server to download and review at the end of the week. I get almost as much backscatter as spam, both over 1000 messages a week.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Ugh, care to elaborate? Anyway, I think the solution is simple. Just publish a giant list of all mail servers not configured properly. It wouldn't be hard to write a script, to verify if a domain is configured or not. It would function as a name and shame list. But more than that, all spammers would harvest from it, and absolutely smash the listed servers until they were forced to configure them properly.
Nope, I'm not getting anything - procmail on my honeytrap spam email account sees it and stops it with a few simple filters
So please try harder, spammers, or go and get extensions to your obviously miniscule penises so you no longer need to take you inadequacies out on the rest of the world.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
There's an easy way to filter out backscatter while preserving bounce messages that you care about (ie. ones about email that you actually sent):
1. Add your own custom header to all your outgoing emails. Doesn't matter what it is, but it should be unique, eg. 'X-Really-From-Richard-Jones: xsomesecretx'
2. MTAs include the original headers in bounce messages, so discard bounce messages which don't contain your custom header.
You can even be smart and sign the header based on the content of the email using a private key, which would make it unforgeable, but at the moment you don't need to do that.
Rich.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
I must have read at least 3 news stories about backscatter in the last week. Why is this only getting attention now when it's been a problem for years? Is it just because someone has coined a word for it?
I can remember years back when some spammer decided to use my domain name in their spam run. Hundreds of bounced emails every day and I cursed everyone of the dumb mail servers that mailed them; complete with original html email, images and any other crappy attachment. ("Hundreds" may be small potatoes these days, but they were a big deal at the time.) Just the very idea that spammers would supply a genuine reply address seemed so incredibly stupid, yet there they were; dozens of carefully worded variants of the same "naughty spammer, don't email me" reply. I could just see some smug sysadmin configuring their system with this badly thought-out garbage, thinking "ha! that'll show them!"
None of my mail servers since then have ever bounced spam or mis-addressed emails.
As a 9-year veteran of the anti-spam industry (with experience within the regulator, although I've left that behind me now and work in telecoms,) it's a REAL stretch for anybody inside the IT industry to take these kinds of comments seriously.
Anybody who says that 'legitimate' mailservers are sending backscatter instead of 5xx-ing the message in transit is wrong. Mailservers which send backscatter are NOT legitimate, EOL.
- A pissed off mail admin.
You're doing it wrong.
Helluvua lot of mail servers out there not configured "properly." I can't block some mail even from "legitimate" mail servers because they are not configured well enough some of my spam rules don't pick them up, so how would a "list" fix that?
As it is, the lists from the anti spam houses work very little. There are so many zombie mail servers out there, I guess, no one can really effectively police these things except through spam filters. And Google are the only folks who can afford a full time staff writing spam filter rules.
Any more properly used to mean not an open relay; now it can can mean not in the same network segment that does have spamming email servers. Lists just add to the insanity and often punish legitimate mail servers.
Dawn of the Dead
"go and get extensions to your obviously miniscule penises "
I think one of their products can help them with that.
I've been using an "unprotected" gmail account for 2 years now. Currently I have 196 spam, all conveniently labeled as such.
During that time I only got one false positive, but that was a really poorly formatted message, and they weren't even replying from the same adress I specifically asked the reply from.
However, I got no false negatives in English, and it took about a week of "Report Spam" to get them up to speed on some new Hungarian torrent tracker spam. Now they're marked spam too.
All in all, Google's spam filter rocks.
The best thing honestly would be for these servers to just clean their act up and handle things properly. Mail rejects should be done before the connection between the two servers closes. It should always be up to the SENDING mail server to generate a bounce rather than the receiving.
The odds of that happening are pretty slim though. There is a "bounce killer" feature in the new version of amavisd-new that I'm looking at that might work well. Apparently (I haven't installed the new version yet) it will store the message ID's of your outgoing messages and if a bounce comes back with an invalid message ID it deletes it.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
One of the main reasons forums don't get hit by spammers is because the admin staff knows what they're doing. They lock down threads, respond quickly, and keep the software up to date. Temporary bans, and permanent bans... You also need a working e-mail address in order to register, which blocks an awful lot of spam. Finally, there's over 150 domains on the banlist for my forums... some of the most popularly used (by spammers) freebie e-mail accounts, like mail.ru.
Oh... and it helps to have a robots.txt file. Mine looks like this:
The forums are served up from a subdomain... the actual site shows up in search engines, but having the separate domain with robots.txt helps keep the forums off the search engines. If they don't know you're there, then they can't spam you.
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
How about we change the delivery method. Instead of an email being sent to me and sitting on my server or service waiting for me to sort it, you send me the headers for the sender, subject, size, date, and attachment status while the message and attachments sit on YOUR server until I chose to pick it up or it expires. The reduction in bandwidth should pay for the increase in storage, and the spammers would have to leave their message sitting on a machine somewhere waiting for me to pick it up (hint, not gonna happen).
1. No servers flooding the net with messages.
2. Easily identifiable spam sources, making bot-nets less useful.
3. Reduced bandwidth as the system replaces the old one.
4. Allow email clients and webmail services to be configured retrieve every message for the few numb nuts that don't/won't get it.
5. Profit (via reduced long term cost).
Just spitballing...
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
1. Only works for obvious spam. For non-obvious spam it means the user has to download it - which notifies the spammer of a known-good address. That means more spam. (Right now images do this, but images can be disabled while preserving the text.)
2. They'll just advertise in the subject line. Perhaps easier to filter, but seems like a losing battle to me.
3. How do you authenticate?
4. Allows people to associate an email address with an IP even if that IP/address never sends them email.
5. Completely fails to account for offline/IMAP use.
Some of this can be mitigated by having the receiving server fetch the mail when the client requests it, but that adds more problems.
1. I'm pretty much whitelisting by hand now, If I don't know you, I don't care what you put in the subject line, your stuff is gone.
2. Set a size limit on all the headers, no hex or encoding, plain text and straight IP addresses for the server holding the mail.
3. Their server sends me a key to pick up the message (a header I forgot), if a server sees the same key a thousand times in a minute or two... hmmmm...
4. Works both ways: Gmail Warning, The message you are about to retrieve is located on a server KNOWN to send spam... Continue?
5. If your offline you are pretty much working with the mail you already downloaded, right?
I'm not saying I have a perfect answer, but there are plenty of people that can figure it out, just like other ideas have been brought to fruition on the web, by cooperation of parties that have a mutual interest... and on this topic, it a BIG group and they have the brain power and bucks to make it work without rattling to many cages.
The point is to reverse it so that the abusers are left holding the bag, botted machines are quickly identified (and hopefully cleaned), and the free ride stops with the death of standard SMTP servers.
All I can offer is my idea of a starting point...
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office