Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Jupiter Forecasts 50% Increase In Spam

Posted by timothy on Tue Dec 03, 2002 04:17 AM
from the vomitous-bottom-feeding-triipeworm-roach-slugs dept.
Mr. Sketch writes "According to Yahoo, the amount of spam is expected to increase 50% in the next five years, meaning the average american will get over 3600 of them a year. The future of email is??"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2
  • 5 to 10 a day? by massive-cow (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:21AM
    • Re:5 to 10 a day? by DennyK (Score:3) Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:26AM
      • Re:5 to 10 a day? by BlackHawk-666 (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @06:55AM
      • Things to Consider by ackthpt (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @08:21AM
      • Re:5 to 10 a day? (Score:5, Informative)

        by pjrc (134994) <paul@pjrc.com> on Tuesday December 03 2002, @09:07AM (#4800840) Homepage Journal
        I get about 250-300 spam messages a day ..... I'd kill to only be getting ten spams a day.

        No need to get violent. No need to kill. The solution is simple, cheap, and pretty easy.

        Just start using SpamAssassin [spamassassin.org]. It's free and installs easily on modern unix systems using either sendmail or procmail. If you're stuck with Outlook on Windows, there's a company selling an installshield-based version for only $30 (considerably less that even the cheapest of murder plots). They claim to be working on support for other windows based clients, so if you're windows based and using another program, relief is probably on the way. They have a 2 week free trial version.

        Spamassassin really works. They claim it filters about 95%, which should put your spam level between 12.5 to 15 messages per day.... very close to the desired goal of 10 (and nobody needs to die).

        With SpamAssassin, every message gets a spam rating. Legitimate messages usually score under 3 points, and SpamAssassin's default threshold is 5.0 points. You can adjust the threshold where messages get filtered... I personally set mine to 7.0 because I'm a bit paranoid of losing any legit messages. But even 7.0 works great... most spam scores well over 10 points. If all your legit messages are scoring very low (quite likely), you might be able to safely lower the threshold a bit and get under that magical 10 per day. Personally, I find it filters nearly all spams even at 7.0.

        Be sure to turn on all the "network" tests including the blacklists and razor. By default, these might be set to 0.0 points each, so they won't get used. They do take some time because they involve communication with other sites (very large ISPs with one mail server for thousands of uses don't want to spend that much time per message, but as an individual you almost certainly do). The blacklists often block legit messages, so give them low scores, but it's safe to set Razor (a database of known spam messages, with "fuzzy" matching) to a high value like 4.0 or even 5.0.

        There's been a lot of hype lately about Bayesian filtering... and maybe someday lots of email clients will have it built in. And maybe large numbers of users will go to the trouble to sort their messages properly so the filters on each machine "learn". Maybe.

        But right now, you can download SpamAssassin for free (or pay just a bit for a commercial much-easier-to-install-on-windows version), and instantly 95% of your incoming spam will be gone. Well, most people just have SpamAssassin modify the message and then they use their mail client or procmail to deliver the message to a "spam folder" (so you can occasionally look through it and remember the bad-old-days before you finally broke down and went through the not-really-that-difficult process of installing SpamAssassin).

        It really works, it's free (or cheap), and it doesn't involve killing anyone.

        [ Parent ]
      • Jupiter Media Metrix == con artists (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MacAndrew (463832) on Tuesday December 03 2002, @09:41AM (#4801140) Homepage
        Consider who [jmm.com] is bringing you this information and take it with a grain of salt. Jupiter is in the business of consulting, and is on nearly every reporter's Rolodex as a source of that all-important statistic to anchor whatever tech story they're writing. So right off the bat they have a potential conflict of interest -- accuracy v. self-promotion as "the source" the data.

        If you listen carefully, nearly every time a web usage statistic is cited it will be attributed to either Jupiter or Forrester Research [forrester.com] -- another (surprise) consulting firm. Listen to the news for these names and you'll be impressed how lazy and naive reporters can be, they often do a lot less research than it appears.

        Next, the NYT profiled them a couple of years ago in the Sunday Magazine. I don't have a link, but recommend you consider buying it (and I never do that!). Basically, it detailed how little experience the average analyst has; how difficult and unscientific it is to come up with data on things like banner ad clicks or to extrapolate tech trends; and quoted one analyst admitting that they were instructed, should the media call with a question they couldn't answer, they should make something up. Often they are spectacularly wrong, but who calls them on it? Again, the all-important goal is to get their name in the press, Jupiter is willing to give an opinion, it's free advertising. Note how Jupiter's name made it into even this short posting?

        I hate to think of businesses making important decisions based on such loosely-derived bits of data. So when I see a spam prediction such as here, I know there's a fair chance it's either an uneducated guess or simply pulled out of someone's ass. Maybe they're right, but I'd like to hear about their methodology. If they say they just went to the Oracle at Delphi [oracleofdelphi.com] (don't those names sound familiar?) then get on with our lives. Spam will still be a problem either way; there are proven ways to fight it; realistically we will never allow it to get to such levels.

        I encourage anyone interested not to believe me and do their own research. IMHO, this is one of the biggest scams this side of the pollsters and brokerage houses. I am deeply contemptuous of their work. Just a statement of opinion, not libel, no siree.

        P.S. May I throw in that I don't like seeing spam victims blamed for their plight. I have been scrupulous with my email for years and still the spam is inexorably growing, largely because of some idiot who opted-in to a dozen things mistakenly typing in my email address instead of his. Now my address is burned into a CD somewhere. Fault is unnecessary; and regardless of fault, the blame lies with the spammer. Naive users do not "deserve" to have their email paralyzed, rather they deserve our sympathy and help.
        [ Parent ]
      • Re:5 to 10 a day? by Lucas Membrane (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @12:35PM
    • Re:5 to 10 a day? by pjgunst (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:28AM
    • Re:5 to 10 a day? by e8johan (Score:3) Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:30AM
    • Re:5 to 10 a day? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mackstann (586043) on Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:45AM (#4799994) Homepage

      Same here, i get *maybe* one email a day, and thats usually from a mailing list or something.

      i only recently got a couple spams on my "real" email account (the one i run myself), my yahoo account i dont check for weeks or months on end (its one of those spam catching accounts for registering places, etc.) and my email at myrealbox.com never gets spammed.

      i have never done any sort of spam blocking/filtering/etc.

      here are some tips in case you dont know them already:

      • don't put your email address anywhere that web crawlers can find it. change s's to $'s, insert little [REMOVETHIS]'s, whatever. just dont put the real addy there, and make sure you obscure the domain name (they can still mail to jackass@ or webmaster@yourdomain and it'll get to someone). any text files, etc, that have even a remote possibility of leaking onto the net (it happens, you dont even need to be famous, there are tons of blah.net/~someuser/ listings with all kinds of interesting files in them on the net...) irc logs, mailing lists!!!, etc. if your address gets on the net, you will be spammed.
      • use a junk address for registrations/etc that might send you junk. common sense.

      andeuh.....thats about it! so, to recap, do type your real user@host email address, anywhere!, and don't sign up for shady stuff with a good email address. man, this sounds so easy, why is it people have such a hard time...

      [ Parent ]
    • Simple: by BrokenHalo (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:16AM
    • Re:5 to 10 a day? by nick-less (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:37AM
      • Re:5 to 10 a day? by bruanor (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @08:06AM
      • Re:5 to 10 a day? by operagost (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @08:55AM
      • Uh... by autopr0n (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:30PM
        • Re:Uh... by nick-less (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @06:36PM
          • No by autopr0n (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @09:43PM
            • Re:No by nick-less (Score:2) Wednesday December 04 2002, @06:28AM
    • Re:5 to 10 a day? by scromp (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @10:41AM
  • whitelisting by muyuubyou (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:21AM
  • Cloudmark by martingunnarsson (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:22AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • The future of email by monsted (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:23AM
    • Re:The future of email (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hkmwbz (531650) on Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:48AM (#4800002) Homepage Journal
      You don't care? Interesting.
      • Are you on a dialup?
      • Do you receive lots of e-mails every day?
      • Do you find that your own mail drowns in incoming spam?
      Probably not. Not only do I get plenty of spam every day. That extra minute of having to deal with spam really bothers me, because I shouldn't have to waste my time like that. It might lead to me accidentally skipping a valid message because I mark a lot of spam messages for deletion and don't notice that important e-mail from a friend from long ago who's trying to get in touch with me because he has important news... Down the drain.

      Spam doesn't bother you? Fine, but don't pretend that it is not a problem to others. Don't try to blow it off like that.

      It is, in fact, a major problem to a lot of people. Not only for personal e-mail, but our network administrators have to deal with absolutely huge amounts of spam that affect the network and its stability and reliability.

      Our company has to spend considerable resources on fighting spam - resources that could have been spent fine-tuning other parts of the network to make everything run smoothly.

      And then there's the amount of spam written in HTML and with images. Why should I spend money on downloading a huge spam message over my dialup connection?

      Spam costs me money. It costs my employer money. It costs a lot of people money.

      Spam is a real problem to a lot of people.

      [ Parent ]
      • Re:The future of email by monsted (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:09AM
        • Re:The future of email by hkmwbz (Score:3) Tuesday December 03 2002, @06:29AM
          • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        • Re:The future of email (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Textbook Error (590676) on Tuesday December 03 2002, @07:20AM (#4800425)
          If people don't have the mental capacity to fairly easily filter out most spam, maybe they should stick to dead-tree-based mail...

          -1, Utter Bollocks...

          Why should I have to put up with endless financial scams and obscenity laden drivel whenever I check my email? Saying "oh, it's not hard to hit delete" is a cop-out. If you don't object to deleting 10 mails a day, what about 50? 100? 200? 1000? Presumably you have a limit on how much you'll take personally, so what are you planning to do when you start getting double that?

          You wouldn't put up with it in any other medium (phone, post, people coming to your house), so why email?
          [ Parent ]
        • Go away! by Andy Dodd (Score:3) Tuesday December 03 2002, @09:01AM
      • Re:The future of email by BrokenHalo (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:23AM
      • Re:The future of email by Stuart Park (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @07:21AM
      • Re:The future of email by pjrc (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @09:30AM
      • Re:Get a filter! by hkmwbz (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @08:57AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:The future of email by gmuslera (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @08:37AM
    • Will you care when you lose your Internet access? by fmaxwell (Score:3) Tuesday December 03 2002, @10:10AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • More like 3600 a week! by dnahelix (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:24AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • 'cause they include clever spam filters.

    I'm trying out POPfile (Naive Bayes text classifier and a POP3 proxy) [sourceforge.net] these days, it's looking good so far.
  • One word.. by SixDimensionalArray (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:24AM
    • Re:One word.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jugalator (259273) on Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:29AM (#4799927) Journal
      you only specify who you want to receive email from, and don't receive any other mail.

      That would be a start!


      Yeah, a pretty bad start, since it would take away most reasons you leave out your e-mail address; to let people you don't know contact you.

      If we have to start whitelisting people to make e-mail usable, we have clearly lost the battle against spammers, since it would make e-mail much less usable than it is today.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:One word.. by spencerogden (Score:3) Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:30AM
    • Re:One word.. by CoachS (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:33AM
    • Re:One word.. by RollingThunder (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:38AM
    • Re:One word.. by BrokenHalo (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:27AM
    • Re:One word.. by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:40AM
      • Re:One word.. by operagost (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @09:19AM
    • Re:One word.. by shird (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:59AM
  • hmm by narkotix (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:25AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • ISPs should fight back (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nefrayu (601593) on Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:25AM (#4799911) Homepage
    I think that ISPs might decide to fight back. They're providing all the bandwidth to send this junk, and if they have to raise rates to their customers to do it, people will leave, causing their revenues to drop. It makes sense for them to nip this thing before that happens. Legislation, software filters, whatever...
  • c'mon (Score:4, Funny)

    by olip (203119) on Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:25AM (#4799912)

    50% over 5 years ? less than moore's law ? lucky are we !

    O.
    • Re:c'mon by yobbo (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:23AM
  • Really? by Quaoar (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:25AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Futurama by SageLikeFool (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:26AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by The Tyro (247333) on Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:27AM (#4799921)
    I get more "Enlarge your penis!!!" Emails than anything else right now in my inbox (*sigh* if only it were true...)

    Here we have the ultimate triumph of the marketdroids. These people think we would buy their stuff for sure, if only we heard the sales pitch. Hmmm... how about "not."

    I've got news for them... you CAN'T sell ice to eskimos. This kind of ridiculous crap makes the sellers look like a bunch of charlatans (if the shoe fits...), and annoys the audience.

    When I get carpal tunnel from pressing Ctrl-D, somebody's going to suffer.
  • Astrology? (Score:3, Funny)

    by trotski (592530) on Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:28AM (#4799926)
    It seems we have found a use for Astrology!

    Since when can a planet perdict an increase in Spam, read the headline, it sounds just like Astrology!
    • Re:Astrology? by A Rabid Tibetan Yak (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:30AM
      • Re:Astrology? by nizo (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @10:51AM
  • There's a good side. (Score:5, Funny)

    by DarkHelmet (120004) <markNO@SPAMseventhcycle.net> on Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:29AM (#4799929) Homepage
    meaning the average american will get over 3600 of them a year

    But at least my penis will grow by an inch or two.

    And it'll always be hard thanks to those free viagra trials.

  • Increase again? by ensignyu (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:30AM
  • That's why... by farfisa69 (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:31AM
  • IANAL, but... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by girl_geek_antinomy (626942) on Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:32AM (#4799940)
    ... Wouldn't a moderate number of 'Western' countries (North America, the EU, and a few others who might want to tag along) banning the sending of unsolicited mail and the marketing of tools and lists with which to do it make a serious impact on the amount of spam recieved? Sure, a certain amount of it comes from abroad, but quite a lot is domestic, too, and quite a few countries in these areas are prepared to pay for it who might not be if it were banned.

    There needs to be a mechanism for the governments to pick up the excess cost of people recieving spam, rather than Jo Punter paying for it in a few extra pennies every time he dials up to check his mail...
  • Here I go again... by Nefrayu (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:33AM
  • Spam forecast (Score:5, Funny)

    by dr.Flake (601029) on Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:33AM (#4799949)


    Thus concludes the 8 o'clock news.

    And now for the Spam forecast for tomorrow we switch to our techie in the basement.
    john?, John are you there?

    Yes margret, we're here in the basement of one of our nations largest ISP's, are we're looking on the screen.

    As you can see, most spam will be concentrated in the north-west, and will slowly decent into the more southern regions of the nation. We can expect particulary heavy downfall of explicit spam, so parents, keep your children away from their mailboxes tomorrow!

    As for the rest of the week, I am sad to say that it doesnt look good. we're likely to see a further increase, as we have seen in the last 5 years in a row now.

    This has been John Geek from the basement of the heart of the digital world, back to you margret...
  • Simple, mail will evolve to an offline IM by Tensor (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:34AM
  • MAPS RBL by Woogiemonger (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:37AM
    • Re:MAPS RBL by BlackHawk-666 (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @07:10AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • The future of email is........ (Score:3, Insightful)

    by IamTheRealMike (537420) on Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:38AM (#4799958) Homepage
    A new (secure) protocol?
    • Re:The future of email is........ (Score:4, Interesting)

      by robinjo (15698) on Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:39AM (#4800155)

      Nice idea but very difficult to implement. The problem is not the protocol. It's the content. No matter how secure a protocol is, a pinhead can always use it to send ads. It just arrived through a "secure" route.

      I guess the best way is to slow down e-mail. That way it would take days to send a million messages. This would hurt mailinglists but exceptions could of course be made. Let certain known behaving servers send e-mail faster. That way you have to earn the right to send e-mail fast.

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:The future of email is........ by Electrum (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @06:17AM
    • Re:The future of email is........ by skurk (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @06:31AM
  • Uranus by bobobobo (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:39AM
    • Re:Uranus by rela (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:44AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Time for a real mail app with P2P capabilities by Anubis333 (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:40AM
  • And the reason..? (Score:3, Informative)

    by euxneks (516538) on Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:42AM (#4799978)
    It's because dummies like you keep responding to them! Stop encouraging them!!! They have no way of making you money, or giving you a horse-sized penis.
    • Re:And the reason..? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by octalgirl (580949) on Tuesday December 03 2002, @07:44AM (#4800504) Journal
      I agree that it's crazy that .0001% actually purchase something, then they think it's a success and spam even more.

      But what I really can't stand is when tech people run around and say "never, ever respond to spam, or try to opt out. You will only get more once they realize your email address is good." This is just BS. It can be confusing to explain the best way to remove spam - learning to decipher legitmate companies (Buy.com, Hickory Farms, Citi Bank) from the viagra ads, but you have to try. The legit ones will truly remove you when asked - so that's done. The ones with broken links and return addresses that go nowhere get filtered - (they can't verify squat because you couldn't reply anyway). And for some of the porn that have either web links or reply requests, just try them. It's a pain to keep track of those you reply to then check to see if they come back, but if they do, that's when you type "remove me from your list and any other list connected to you or I will forward this message to my state's attorney general". I've done this a couple of times, and it's like a big swoosh sound as the spam gets sucked off of my computer. Those few viagra and hot teen things that come to me I just delete. These are mostly from fake .aol or .msn accounts anyway (and if you have time, those get sent to abuse@aol, etc. -not that they'll do anything, but it's good to annoy them) Overall, after a few weeks of fighting back, my spam has been reduced greatly.

      Ironically, out of all of the articles and how-to's I have read, very few explain how to try to opt out. The National Enquirer, of all rags, actually had a very good article on spam and included opt out instructions that pretty much follow my method - when to do it, when to not bother. They have also had good articles on keeping kids safe online, identity theft, alerts on kids modeling sites that border on child pron - who would have guessed to find decent tech stuff there?
      [ Parent ]
  • A modest idea... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by still_sick (585332) on Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:43AM (#4799980)
    The problem currently is that there's so many people who are doing a very good job at blocking / stopping most of the spam that the average joe or public official doesn't realize just how much spam is sent to his mailbox every day (or at least would be if it weren't for the anti-spammers).

    What if for a period of time, maybe a week or a month, a day isn't long enough, the anti-spammers just quit. All of them. Let the spammers have an internet-wide orgy. Let people see how much of a problem this is - let the lawmakers make better spam laws, and then have the law enforcement stop them.

    Blocking the spam is counter-productive, it only encourages the spammers to come up with better ideas on how to get it into your mailbox. The spam needs to be stopped at the source.
  • Tupperspam by Hasie (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:44AM
  • Study the stars for computer predictions! by Erik K. Veland (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:44AM
  • Good bye privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by USC-MBA (629057) on Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:45AM (#4799992) Homepage
    As a libertarian, I am concerned by the tension between wanting to stamp out the flow of spam, and the two-pronged threat anti-spam forces pose both to free speech and to email anonymity.

    The ability to send unsolicited email to practically anyone has long been a valuable online tool for everything from online protests (like filling your Congressman's mailbox with anti-DMCA flames) to communicating with intriguing personalities. A good deal of anti-spam legislation can be interpreted in ways that infringe on this basic cyber-right. Worse, the anti-spam cause could also be used by authoritarian interests to crack down on all unsiolicited emails.

    Likewise, anonymous remailers and open relays have been used by people to protect their privacy almost as long as email has existed. These valuable tools of freedom can also be targeted by the Ashcrofts of the world in their bid to tie back our liberites, all in the name of crushing "spam".

    Let us hope that privacy-loving interests will continue to develop technological solutions to the problem of spam, thereby keeping the solution to the problem market- and freedom- based rather than relying on the "good graces" of the State to keep junk mail out of our inboxes

    • Re:Good bye privacy? by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:24AM
      • Injunction by pommiekiwifruit (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:45AM
    • Re:Good bye privacy? by hkmwbz (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @06:44AM
    • Re:Good bye privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Steve B (42864) on Tuesday December 03 2002, @09:23AM (#4800991) Homepage
      As a libertarian, I am concerned by the tension between wanting to stamp out the flow of spam, and the two-pronged threat anti-spam forces pose both to free speech and to email anonymity.

      If you're a libertarian, then you know perfectly well that you don't have a right to "free" speech on my dime.

      The ability to send unsolicited email to practically anyone has long been a valuable online tool for everything from online protests (like filling your Congressman's mailbox with anti-DMCA flames)

      Any communication to your Congressman about federal legislation is inherently solicited -- it's part of the job.

      Worse, the anti-spam cause could also be used by authoritarian interests to crack down on all unsolicited emails.

      The anti-crime* cause in general could be (and is) used by authoritarian interests to attack privacy, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to keep private property, etc. However, nobody in his right mind suggests that crime should be tolerated as the price of liberty.

      (*I am referring here to real crimes such as theft and assault, not to politically invented ones such as drug possession. Spam, being a theft of services, properly falls into the former category.)

      Likewise, anonymous remailers and open relays have been used by people to protect their privacy almost as long as email has existed.

      Reputable anonymous remailers have always limited message flow, precisely to prevent them from being used to steal bandwidth from others.

      Let us hope that privacy-loving interests will continue to develop technological solutions to the problem of spam

      Technological solutions and legal solutions complement one another. We lock our doors and arrest burglars.

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Good bye privacy? by KC7GR (Score:3) Tuesday December 03 2002, @10:59AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by MS (18681) on Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:47AM (#4799998)
    Modern countries have adopted laws against spam:

    Spamming is illegal throughout the European Union - I don't get hardly any spam from Europe (I get about 60 a day!), and if I get some, I am entitled to cash 250 Euros from the spammer... it works!

    Unfortunately some third-world countries like Korea, China, Brasil and USA (!!!) still allow spam or are reluctant to fight spammers, so spam is still a big problem to the whole world.

    Until those countries don't wake up and outlaw spam, the problem will persist

    PS: I recently have put most of APNIC in my sendmail access-list - it eliminates 60% of the spam, but spam from USA is still an issue.

    Greetings,
    ms --

  • by dagg (153577) on Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:47AM (#4799999) Journal
    During a lifetime the average person will swallow sixteen spiders while they are sleeping! We all know that that is because there is this one dude in Switzerland that swallows seven trillion spiders per year while he is sleeping. I won't ever swallow any spiders while sleeping, but that one guy messes up the average.

    Same theory with spam. Except my amount of spam will increase 1000fold, and yours won't increase at all. I'm messing up the average. I should probably stop soliciting impotence advice from Dr. Spam-alot.

  • Moore's Law by oku (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:47AM
    • Re:Moore's Law by redshift-systems (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @08:08AM
  • Reading the headline... by little1973 (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:49AM
  • When in Doubt by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:49AM
  • Spam the spammers by chrischan (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:52AM
  • Way of life by Motekye (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:53AM
    • Re:Way of life by DirkDaring (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @08:56AM
    • *SIGH* by RatBastard (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @02:24PM
  • spam .. oops mail by katalyst (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:55AM
  • Spammers defeating the filters by Alioth (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @04:57AM
  • How About a Thousand Spams per Month (Score:5, Insightful)

    by serutan (259622) <doug@geekaz[ ]com ['on.' in gap]> on Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:00AM (#4800037) Homepage
    A little calculation...

    There are about 12 million businesses in the US alone. If one tenth of one percent of them sent you one email per year, it would amount to 1000 messages per month. Just a single, polite inquiry once a year by a tiny fraction of the legitimate businesses in the US, none of whom would suspect that they are causing a problem. As common as spam may seem, most businesses haven't discovered unsolicited email as a marketing tool.

    That's the main reason we need anti-spam legislation. Not especially because of the aggressive efforts of a few assholes, but because of the clogging potential of even light usage by a vast number of businesses who mean no harm.
  • The future of email is... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Beautyon (214567) on Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:02AM (#4800039) Homepage
    Perfect client side email filtering.

    The more people blow this problem up, the more likely it is that legislators will try and tackle it.

    And you know what that means; more bad "cyberlaw".

    Much better to concentrate on solutions to a problem, rather than making repretitive and useless noises about the problem itself.
  • What happens if you were paid to read spam ? by LL (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:06AM
  • 50% in five years???? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by martin (1336) <maxsec@nosPAM.dsl.pipex.com> on Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:11AM (#4800062) Journal
    more like 6 months

    I see a Moore's Law for spam - spam power will double every 9 months

    So if you want to get into a growing industry work for/found an anti-spam company.

    as ever with a :-)

  • how about a sane upgrade to SMTP? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CoughDropAddict (40792) on Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:12AM (#4800067)
    The future of email is??

    I'm no fortuneteller but a good start would be an email protocol that fucking authenticates the sender so that you could be guaranteed that every email in your inbox has a from header that doesn't lie. No more untracable spammers. No more viruses that claim to come from your friends. As an added bonus, this would stop the flood of emails from various postmasters warning you that an email you never sent was not able to go through.

    Seriously, SMTP needs to be redone and the sooner the better. I know there are things like TLS and SMTP auth floating around, but they are not pervasive or mandatory, so they do no good at all.
  • by npcole (251514) on Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:13AM (#4800068)
    I'll probably loose karma over this, but here goes anyway.

    Of course spam is an important issue. And it's damn annoying too. But I simply don't believe all these stories about how email is going to become crippled by it.

    There are spam filters. More importantly, the use of aggressive blacklists forces ISPs themselves to take a tough line.

    The questioner asks what the future for email is. Well, it's simple: email is fine as long as the user is sensible. I have several accounts. I know that my hotmail account is entirely unusuable because of the level of spam it recieves. If I need to give my email address to someone I don't trust fully, I give them that.

    I have a work address. This gets a little spam from time to time as the organisation gets targeted. I filter out these spams with my own spam filter.

    Mailing lists tend to go to another address. So far, I haven't had too much spam from that quarter.

    My personal address is known only to a few friends. So far, no spam.

    The rule for keeping your address spam free is the same as it ever was: don't publish it.

    Now, what about people who want to advertise their address for open source projects and the like? Well, put it in the source code, in the README files, wherever you like. Just not on your web page.

    • Important Information by hosebee (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @06:01AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • by hkmwbz (531650) on Tuesday December 03 2002, @07:04AM (#4800377) Homepage Journal
      You said it yourself: Spam makes your Hotmail account unusable. That is why people complain. Spam takes up network resources and disk space. it wastes people's time. It sometimes makes an e-mail account unusuable - especially if you don't have the time to set up filtering etc.

      People shouldn't have to spend their time dealing with spam. Why should I have to? Why should I have to get multiple e-mail addresses because of spam? Why should my employer have to spend lots of money and resources on fighting spam, when it could have been spent elsewhere to improve performance rather than trying to prevent performance from deteriorating because of spam?

      How does spam cripple e-mail communication, you ask? Again, you said it yourself. People have to start hiding their e-mail address. It will be harder to find a contact address to get in touch with them.

      You are talking about spreading FUD. At the same time, you kind of contradict yourself by showing that yes, e-mail addresses can become unusable because of spam and yes, spam can cripple e-mail communication.

      So where's the FUD? Spam is a serious problem to many, and you, as someone else I responded to, don't seem to understand this. You only seem to be able to see it from your own point of view. Maybe spam doesn't bother you. Well, I can inform you that it does bother me, my friends and my employer. A lot. It costs us money. It costs us time. This is not "gloom and FUD", it is reality.

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Could we all just stop spreading gloom and FUD? by BlackHawk-666 (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @09:11AM
    • Re:Could we all just stop spreading gloom and FUD? by RatBastard (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @02:55PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • The Solution To Spam by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:17AM
  • Spammer jokes by Micah (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:18AM
  • Not so bad by leoboiko (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:29AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • No chance (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Matts (1628) on Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:31AM (#4800126) Homepage
    There's no way in hell we're going to be that lucky. A 50% increase in 5 years would make me jump with joy.

    The truth is it's increasing at a much faster rate than that. Recent research [zdnet.co.uk] has shown that it's going up about 400% per year!!! And my personal email account verifies that sort of increase.

    I suspect Jupiter is going to be eating its own words. In 5 years I suspect we'll be seeing perhaps 50 times more spam, not 50% more.
  • Meatspace spam sucks more. by IOOOOOI (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:31AM
  • SpamAssasin (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Conspire (102879) on Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:34AM (#4800135) Homepage
    I configured SpamAssasin [spamassasin.org] on our incoming mail servers earlier this year. Whew! Was I a happy man! Not enough is said about the great work the SpamAssasin team has done. It just works, filtering out >95% of the spam I receive (about 30 to 40 per day). And what about my hotmail account? I can't be bothered to look through that load of garbage anymore.
    • Re:SpamAssasin by Saint Aardvark (Score:3) Tuesday December 03 2002, @08:48AM
    • Re:SpamAssasin by dickens (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @07:36PM
      • Re:SpamAssasin by Conspire (Score:2) Wednesday December 04 2002, @03:49AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • A serious quality of life issue... by syd02 (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:36AM
  • An Honest Question by jchawk (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:43AM
    • Re:An Honest Question by scj (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @06:05AM
    • TMDA by hoggoth (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @11:25AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Why client filtering will not solve the problem by tlambert (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:48AM
  • Not as much as I expected (Score:3, Insightful)

    by spakka (606417) on Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:51AM (#4800184)
    An 8.5% p.a. rate of increase? I hope these estimates are correct - I'd expected it to be much worse.
  • Spam is simply too cheap... by Saeger (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:57AM
  • cost by malana-cream (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:59AM
    • Re:cost by Caid Raspa (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @08:37AM
  • So if you want. by Martigan80 (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:59AM
  • extradite the spamers? by feepcreature (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @06:01AM
  • by blowdart (31458) on Tuesday December 03 2002, @06:04AM (#4800223) Homepage

    .. that refuse to disconnect anyone spamvertising yahoo store URLs? I'm surprised yahoo has the gall to carry the story.

  • Spam Not Illegal by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @06:08AM
  • cant we... by tanveer1979 (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @06:10AM
  • Huh? Right... by Eggplant62 (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @06:16AM
  • What's needed is... by Drakin (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @06:22AM
  • Spam? by KecCu (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @06:24AM
  • Result of spam filters.. by irc.goatse.cx troll (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @06:32AM
  • until by rakerman (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @06:33AM
  • Central spam check servers? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Stroot (223139) on Tuesday December 03 2002, @06:38AM (#4800315)
    Wouldn't it be a solution if the people who coordinate the web installed some new central servers, like the DNS servers, to check emailadresses for sending spam?
    The DNS servers return an ip address for a given domainname. The spamcheck servers would return a value for a given emailaddress.

    This value could be modded up by the number of people reporting this emailadress as spam and modded down in time when people stop reporting this address.

    Your provider will check every received mail with the central servers and store their spam value.

    Your mailclient will receive only mail from your provider with a lower value than the value you configured. The rest will be removed from server at that time or only the headers of the bad mails will be send to your mailclient and put in a spamfolder where you can approve or remove them manually.
  • here's an idea.... by dsanfte (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @06:40AM
  • The answer to spam by jonwil (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @06:41AM
  • Account names.. by rastachops (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @06:46AM
  • In Other News: (Score:3, Funny)

    by Jasonv (156958) on Tuesday December 03 2002, @07:00AM (#4800362)
    In 1970 there were 500 Elvis impersonators in America. Today there are 150,000.

    It is expected that in the year 2020 one out of every three people will be an Elvis impersonator.
  • Because spam works and spammers know it. by Trump (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @07:07AM
  • What are legal responses to Spam? by robotissues (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @07:27AM
  • In related news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Alsee (515537) on Tuesday December 03 2002, @07:31AM (#4800462) Homepage
    Mercury Predicts: The sun will rise tomorrow.
    Venus Predicts: A slashdot reader will not get laid tonight
    Earth Predicts: You are here X
    Mars Predicts: Continued fighting in the Middle East.
    Saturn Predicts: More pictures will be taken of its rings.
    Neptune Predicts: An unsinkable ship will eventualy sink.
    Uranus Predicts: Someone will relpy to this post with a Goatse link.
    Pluto Predicts: Disney characters [videocds2000.com] will not enter the public domain any time soon.

    -
  • Just use hash cash already. by tomstdenis (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @07:37AM
  • The following info will stop 80% of the spam by WillRobinson (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @07:43AM
  • Only 50%? by mrfiddlehead (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @07:48AM
  • Ah yes, SPAM.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xA40D (180522) on Tuesday December 03 2002, @08:13AM (#4800598)
    I've been seeing a marked increase in the number of articles claiming we're all going to be knee deep in spam any day now. Most of these stories seem to be based on information comming out of a press release from MessageLabs - who interestingly sell services to defeat spam.

    So IMHO I think the story should really be...

    FUD increases sales of SPAM related services by 50%

    SPAM is annoying, it's true. However, filtering it out is not rocket science - but then most people pull out the cheque book before engaging their brain.
  • just use e-cash (but it won't happen) by g4dget (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @08:19AM
  • Who Says Spam is a Bad Thing? by RAMMS+EIN (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @08:35AM
  • I'm pretty sure I get more than that now by AssFace (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @08:41AM
  • Use a filtering service. by JonathanBrickman0000 (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @08:44AM
    • SPAMCOP works by macguiguru (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @12:03PM
  • email isn't the only victim by neoform (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @08:44AM
  • In Other News... by kruczkowski (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @09:08AM
  • Jupiter/Juniper by fuzzybunny (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @09:13AM
  • SpamAssassin by dochood (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @09:20AM
  • Blame your ISP (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SamMichaels (213605) on Tuesday December 03 2002, @09:24AM (#4801000)
    I'm getting really ticked about this spam crap. This is something that the ISPs need to handle, and handle fast.

    Why is it that they feel responsible to filter out Napster, Kazaa...filter out port 25...filter this, filter that, monitor this, monitor that....

    Yet none of them can do something as simple as an opt-in spam guard. It's turned on by default..and you don't need some fancy enterprise edition. You need Exim, Exiscan and SpamAssassin. Done. Should take a half-competent fresh college grad admin about an hour to do.

    Sure, some ISPs do it already. I remember when I was on Earthlink (2+ years ago) they had it...worked ok. How about everyone else? How about doing it FOR FREE?

    You don't win the war on drugs by going after drug dealers or importers. You win the war on drugs by poisoning the drugs so noone wants them.

    You don't win the war on spam by going after spammers or Asian servers. You win the war on spam by doing your part to educate end users and block it for them, thus removing the spammers' audience.

    Corporate MS/RIAA/MPAA/FCC-like nonsense happening. When are these people going to wake up and do their part?

    FYI, system stats to date for just my personal server at home:

    SPAM caught to date: 4193 in 84,397,706 bytes

    Viruses caught to date: 1018 in 277,420,970 bytes

    Yes, I'm donating my spam collection to spamarchive.org.
  • For the outlook-afflicted : cloudmark by (arg!)Styopa (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @09:25AM
  • Ofcoarse by GMC-jimmy (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @09:40AM
  • Tax Spam by Walrus99 (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @09:47AM
  • Got spam beat by tacocat (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @09:56AM
  • Doesn't anyone care about accuracy any more? by chipwich (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @10:08AM
  • Underestimated by Trevin (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @10:25AM
  • Obligatory tired old in joke by dacarr (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @10:32AM
  • Consider the Source - YAHOO by AnalogDiehard (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @10:38AM
  • Spam No More ... by fygment (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @10:39AM
  • The best spam-protection tool I know by Parafilmus (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @10:59AM
  • The future of spam? by Z0mb1eman (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @11:05AM
  • SPAMMER's & Marketing Assholes by COredneck (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @11:55AM
  • Only 3600 emails/year? by tuxlove (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @11:56AM
  • but according to the spammers by rock_climbing_guy (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @01:11PM
  • how to really fix the problem by hypergreatthing (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @01:34PM
  • 3600 a year? by mseeger (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @01:38PM
  • I see the future of portable media! by MarsF (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @01:39PM
  • just 10 spams a day? by autopr0n (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @01:44PM
  • sneakmail.com email forwarding by rave77 (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @02:14PM
  • A new service by compjma (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @03:20PM
  • Big changes coming I think... by Eric Damron (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @03:34PM
  • Super-hard-line stance by CaptainPhong (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:07PM
  • hold me i cant help myself... by thanq (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @06:39PM
  • I believe spam will get better by gone.fishing (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @08:50PM
  • How to Stop Spam by rbullo (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @10:17PM
  • Easy solution by Kris_J (Score:2) Tuesday December 03 2002, @10:28PM
  • If you want to stop SPAM ... by some guy I know (Score:1) Wednesday December 04 2002, @05:04AM
  • Jupiter Forecasts 50% Increase In Spam by Guipo (Score:1) Thursday December 05 2002, @01:42PM
  • Re:9 emails a day? by 91degrees (Score:1) Tuesday December 03 2002, @05:20AM
  • 16 replies beneath your current threshold.
(1) | 2