Slashdot Mirror


Postfix's Creator Outlines Spam Solution

SATAN writes "Wietse Venema started out as a physicist, but became interested in the security of the programs he wrote to control his physics experiments. He went on to create several well-known network and security tools, including the Security Administrator's Tool for Analyzing Networks (SATAN) and The Coroner's Toolkit with Dan Farmer. He is also the creator of the popular MTA Postfix and TCP Wrapper. SecurityFocus chatted up Venema to talk about software security, how to improve the code quality, what solutions we might have to fight spam successfully, the principle of least privilege, and the philosophy behind the design of Postfix. Venema is currently a researcher at IBM's T.J. Watson Research Center."

11 of 253 comments (clear)

  1. It's easy by smartin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just get everyone to sign their mail including companies that send you receipts and opted in spam.

    I would be happy if I could reject any mail that is not digitally signed and then manage the signed mail by signature.

    --
    The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
    1. Re:It's easy by Xugumad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe not solve, but I imagine most people get the vast majority of their e-mail, and ALL critical e-mail, from people they know in advance. This means that "uncertain" e-mail can be ignored safely for significant lengths of time, confident in the knowledge that if your boss e-mails you, you'll still get notification ASAP.

      Make sense?

    2. Re:It's easy by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Dude, if we could get everyone to do something then there would be a super easy way to stop SPAM: namely get everyone to stop clicking on stupid shit.

      Not only does that action give spammers income, it is the #1 vector for the spread of botnets.....

    3. Re:It's easy by swillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Dude, if we could get everyone to do something then there would be a super easy way to stop SPAM: namely get everyone to stop clicking on stupid shit. Not only does that action give spammers income, it is the #1 vector for the spread of botnets.....

      Actually, it doesn't give spammers income. Spammers don't care if you click the links. By the time you're deciding whether or not to click, the spammer has already done his job and made his money.

      If you think not clicking links is gonna convince all the get-rich-quick scheming fools to stop paying spammers to send their crap then you sadly underestimate the supply of fools.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  2. Re:I lost a lot of respect for Wietse Venema by shis-ka-bob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let me get this straight. Two men help strangers to use free software and you are calling one an ass because he wants to 1) share the results of a fix with future users of the group, and 2) avoid flowery 'thank you' follow ups because he has high pressure work to do (there is no other kind of work at Morgan Stanley). Is that the jist of it?

    --
    Think global, act loco
  3. Re:Not only that. by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think he is talking about reliability in that every email sent gets to its destination. Right now, email can be blocked as spam. It doesn't matter whether you do the blocking at the SMTP level or not, it is still being blocked including some legitimate emails. If legitimate email is being blocked for any reason, it means the service is not reliable. Your caveat "As long as YOUR email admin handles error messages in any sane way" doesn't solve anything since the person sending the email is usually not responsible for how their email server is configured. Meaning that for them, the service is either reliable or it isn't. This ultimately means that if someone's legitimate email gets blocked by you/your server for some erroneous reason, that your email server is not reliable, and less so than in 1998. The article is saying our current anti spam counter measures are what is making email less reliable.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  4. Re:Still waiting for a "one solution" email produc by tomz16 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Getting these to flawlessly get set-up from scratch is a feat in itself. Why don't we have such a product? I am no coder so I cannot do much except reporting problems.

    I imagine a single script a user can run then have all those services running within parameters to be supplied. Linux folks are capable of a lot more so this should not be that difficult.

    ... because mail IS complicated, and each of these products has its own quirks and gotchas.

    Someone who cannot be bothered to read the teeny fraction of relevant documentation necessary to properly set up this software probably has no business administering it (especially on a production network). Since a poorly configured mail server really has the potential to piss thousands of people off around the planet, I'm actually content with the current state of affairs...

    P.S. you are looking for a product called Microsoft Exchange. It has nice big buttons you can point and click on. Luckily the costs involved and the presence of an official certification program serve as an effective barrier to entry for most amateur admins.

  5. Re:I lost a lot of respect for Wietse Venema by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For some reason many people prefer to have polite, useless help than have someone who directly solves their problem without a bunch of extra words on the side. It boggles the mind, and it's a large part of why I significantly curtailed the time I spend helping people work through their problems. For some reason, a whole lot of people with questions get angry with people who ask things like "what are you actually trying to do here?" or who tell them that their whole approach is wrong, but are perfectly fine with people who go along answering questions politely and wrongly for dozens of messages.

    --
    If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
  6. Re:Just use gmail by theCoder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The pull model really isn't a good idea, because that is what spammers are already trying to get people to do. They want you to open the email and click the link. A pull model just makes that automatic. Not to mention all the marketing people (pseudo-spammers) that would just love to know which of their recipients actually look at their emails, and how long they look at them, etc. I already get mailings (alumni stuff, etc) that are just links to a web page where I can read the actual letter.

    And of course, "just use gmail" isn't really a solution. It only works until someone figures out how to get through gmail's filters, or Google really sells out and starts allowing select "partners" to advertise to members directly. Though there is some irony in the idea that you can avoid email advertising by using a system that has ads in the email viewer. I'm not saying anything bad about Google or gmail, just pointing out the irony :)

    --
    "Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
  7. Re:I lost a lot of respect for Wietse Venema by nyctopterus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know, even if you're doing something good, if you do it with ill temper and lack of grace, you're still being an arse.

  8. Re:I lost a lot of respect for Wietse Venema by mandelbr0t · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, if someone deals with the unwashed masses regularly, it might be a good idea to learn some manners and/or diplomacy. There's no excuse for being an asshole, not even being ridiculously intelligent and having to deal with real idiots. Everyone has stress in their lives, and it's like geniuses can't be bothered to deal with it gracefully. Quietly ignoring the "it works, thanks" e-mail saves just as much time, without alienating the person with his first response.

    --
    "Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully