General discussion


Why antispam laws may make things worse

By debate ·
Do you agree with Jonathan Yarden that antispam laws will be mostly ineffective? What do you think is the best method to stop junk e-mail? Share your comments about the potential of antispam laws, as discussed in the Nov. 10 Internet Security Focus e-newsletter.

If you haven't subscribed to our free Internet Security Focus e-newsletter, sign up today!

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

They have

by Oz_Media In reply to I agree - it will be wors ...

"If someone could come up with a software to control 90% of SPAM"
They did but it's not $10 it's $3200.00

The two heaviest days for my spam are Sat and Sun. This weekend I received NONE. ZIP, Nil, nada, squat. Big buck but well worth it.

See: "Complete waste of time and money" below

Collapse -

Complete waste of time and money

by Oz_Media In reply to Why antispam laws may mak ...

To bring legislature into Anti Spam is overkill. Spammers chuckle at the idea and await the fun of rerouting and burying origins in order to cross a new stepping stone. It will probably even give the first few some bragging rights.

SPAM cannot really be controlled by the ISP either other than ensuring it's users have properly patched and shutdown relays.

I have just done about 6 weeks research into different forms of SPAM protection/RBL's/Heuristics etc. and have found MANY products available for the servers I manage with pricing from FREE to $4000.00.

Unfortunately the software I chose in the end was only just shy of top dollar at $3200.00 for a single server and upto 200 users.

The protection I chose (GroupWsie Guardian), is excellent at filtering with an almost undetectable number of false positives. It uses a fier and forget updating system, heuristic, RBL, adress blocking at the MTA, the Web Access portal as well as internally.

My email this weekend has dropped from over 450/day to 65/day (which were all relevant by the way). After checking the filtered mail, not a SINGLE false positive was identified.

I tried many others that offered similar results but each had a weakness that I couldn't live with.

a)End user filtering based on address - Useless these days, becuae it requires user intervention and addresses are always changed

b) No scanning on the MTA, only at the desktop level - servers are still bogged with junk and/or a virus

c) No heuristic scanning - Clever message titles will work around key-word blocks.

d) RBL scanning - on it's own will generate too many false positives

e) No web mail scanning - users still open themselves up to SPAm and viruses when checking webmail.

All of the above and more are covered in my software now, it is nice to not spend 30 minutes/day sorting and filtering mail!

You get what you pay for, I guess.

Collapse -


by Rabbit_Runner In reply to Why antispam laws may mak ...

From the above threads, I tend to see 4 possible things that can be done.
1. Legal - Enact new laws (seems that all aggree that this will not work)
2. Have the ISPs create some spam filter at their end before e-mails are received by the user.
3. User should obtain spam filtering software.
4. Charge for each email being sent.
There are various flavors of these four. But I would like to make an observation.
In all of these possibilites, the ultimate cost will be put upon the end user. If #2 is used, the costs incured by the ISP will be passed along to their subscribers.
If #2 is used, we will be forced to spend our own money to protect ourselves.
If #4 is used, well this is a 'pay-per-use' cost.
In all, the ultimate cost will be us, individuals and corporations. This problem will not go away, until we, the user, are so fed up with the hassle of SPAM or SPORN, that we are willing to fork over the cash to end the abuse in our email.

In all of the answers above, and probably below, there are different ways that the solutions can be implemented. But even then, we will have to be the ones to clear up this problem. At least for our small portion of the internet. The part that we use and are protecting.

What ever happens, I will be expected to pay to stop the SPAM and email abuse.

Collapse -

I agree, unless the support comes directly from the ISP, broadcast central

by alfy451 In reply to Why antispam laws may mak ...

They need to issue some special code that only allows those co's approved, and kills those that decide to go roag. When you hit these clowns in their pocket book, is when all will play fair.

Collapse -

When you hit these clowns in their pocket book - Not really

by Oz_Media In reply to I agree, unless the suppo ...

SPAMMING like telemarketing is tstrictly a numbers game. Those who play it well and with some skill (yes, skill)will make a LOT of money. Many are simly nutbags that try to make some dough but fail, these are the come and gone SPAMs that many SPAM protection systems will block, however needlessly.

EG: I send 50, 000 emails for a 10 toy I'm trying to market.
30,000 are deleted or blocked.
20,000 are opened, either intentionally or by the Outlook preview pane not being disabled.
Even if 5% are responded to (not a big number in marketnig standards), that's 1000 responses.
If 5% of those responses (again NOT an unreasonable response rate). That's 50 sales at $10.00 = $500.

$500.00 is chump change, but when you reverse tha math. $500.00 X 30 DAYS/Mo = $15,000.00/mo

Now these figures are just a rough example yet they are NOT by any means unrealistic.

And you think that hiting them in the pocket book will resolve this? It just means they ahave to send twice as many emails now.

As for approving or disproving SPAM by the company, that is not going to be effective when people use alias to/from addresses. It will result in MANY false positives resulting in MANY lost accounts for the ISP.

I have received SPAM from myself as a result of WEB crawlers that search for email addresses on websites. If I was approved as a Company and this person used my address to send mail, the ISP would disconnect ME and I in turn would lose THEM.

This is a multi-billion dollar enterprise tha has swept the globe with no abandon. If you can't stop the SPAMMERS, you CAN get decent SPAM protection, for the right price of course (probably a VERY high one too, as I've found out).

Collapse -

McCain amendment to SPAM bill

by pgm554 In reply to When you hit these clowns ...

This amendment allows you to go after the manufacturer of that product.
If some idiot keeps on sending spam for a radio controlled car toy(remember that one?).
Guess what?The government can go after the company for fines and criminal prosecution.
It will make them think twice about spamming.

I like that boy's way of thinking.

Collapse -

Been done already

by Oz_Media In reply to McCain amendment to SPAM ...

There is a long white paper on Stopping AntiSpam and what legal actions you can take(I'll try to find you a link another time) and legality in different states.
If your computer is connected to a printer, your computer is considered a fax machine. In which case spam is breaking fax laws. Too much money for most people to persue action.

Now you're saying that people would take a LOT of time and spend a large amount of money to try and sue an overseas manufacturer of some 50,000+ different toys and an annual revenue of over 420 mil.
...and this is opposed to simply spending a few bucks for a worthwhile SPAM detection system?

I don't think so. It's a nice idea but not realistic.

Collapse -

anti spam

by brianc861 In reply to Why antispam laws may mak ...

If you are tired of spam , the best thing you could do is this , change your email address ie bob@spam , usser code 123 123 change everything you will not get spam as long as you don't subscribe to all the new subscriptions , don't give out any info , Most of all get a Firewall that works , with yous sys, and Most important run a good antivirus software progrem

Collapse -

asy for the home user

by Oz_Media In reply to anti spam

But blocking SPAM from a residential account is easy, as you've noted.
This won't work with a 250 seat organization. The biggest issue with SPAM I feel is the cost to large companies. THese are business mail servers that are being hemmaered due to a lack of worthwhile SPAM protection products for servers that actually work and trap mail BEFORE it is processed by the Email server.

Collapse -

More than one way to skin a cat...

by 94YearOldPro In reply to Why antispam laws may mak ...

I?m going to keep it simple...

Don't make SPAM a legal problem. Make the ISPs morally (and financially) responsible.

The users can change ISPs which will hurt the ISP in the pocket. On top of that, I can only imagine that this much SPAM must require extra hardware costs and the associated costs in usage and administration. The ISPs should be happy with less SPAM.

1) The big ISPs disconnect hijacked broadband machines.
2) They adopt a boycott policy on ISPs that don?t also implement similar restrictions.
3) They make use of RBLs and other anti-SPAM techniques.

The bottom line is that we keep the internet free while squashing this worldwide problem. The flood would soon become a trickle. At that point, who is going to financially back a system that can?t reach the masses anymore?

Related Discussions

Related Forums