US winning war on spam ?!?!?!

[Martin Hepworth <ma...@solid-state-logic.com>]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4547474.stm

Not according to my stats....but the users don't get the spam anymore ;-)

--
Martin Hepworth 
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300



**********************************************************************

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept
for the presence of computer viruses and is believed to be clean.	

**********************************************************************

Re: US winning war on spam ?!?!?!

[jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>]

From: "Matt Kettler" <mk...@comcast.net>

> At 03:00 PM 12/21/2005, Justin Mason wrote:
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>
>>Matt Kettler writes:
>> > But the reality of the numbers won't stop the FTC from tooting it's own
>> > horn and claiming victory.. Unfortunately for us, this will likely result
>> > in some major spammers unleashing a mass-scale deluge just to show they're
>> > wrong. The best I think we can hope for is that a few of them might get
>> > reckless in this endeavor and get nailed.
>>
>>by the way note that the FTC did *NOT* say this.  The news stories didn't
>>quite emphasise the real points.
>>
>>The FTC report (
>>http://www.ftc.gov/reports/canspam05/051220canspamrpt.pdf) actually said:
> 
> The report itself may not be hawking the can-spam beyond those two ways, 
> but their summaries have broader endorsements in them
> 
> http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/12/buttonpushers.htm
> 
> "The FTC also issued a report assessing the effectiveness of the CAN-SPAM 
> Act which concludes that technological anti-spam advances have reduced the 
> amount of spam reaching consumers' in-boxes. Moreover, rigorous law 
> enforcement has had a deterrent effect on spammers. As a result, consumers 
> are receiving less spam now than they were receiving in 2003. "
> 
> "The report to Congress, "Effectiveness and Enforcement of the CAN-SPAM 
> Act," concludes that the Act is effective in providing protection for 
> consumers, and that the Act is being enforced aggressively by state and 
> federal law enforcers and the private sector. "
> 
> Sounds to me like they're claiming CAN-SPAM is a victory... They aren't 
> claiming final victory yet, but they are claiming CAN-SPAM is providing 
> consumer protection by acting as a deterrent and enforcement tool.  This is 
> true, but they fail to note aspect appears to have short-term effects at best.

Does CAN-SPAM affect any of the folks on the ROKSO list? (Until he is in
custody I don't trust Ralsky is really "out of business" more than
momentarily after the FBI busted him.) It shut down some of Leo's
associates, perhaps. I notice Leo is still in full swing out there,
taunting his spam targets as he spams them.

It does keep honest companies from spamming. And that is a good thing.
Heck, it gives us a way to judge who is honest and who is not, even in
the face of spammers trying to obfuscate that issue, too.

It is a very limited success. But something needs to be done about the
flood of spam and malware that simply eats network bandwidth and costs
is all extra money to support the higher bandwidths needed. (I still say
finding spammers first and exercising some social persuasion in the form
of say broken index finger, middle finger, and thumb might be more
effective. But then I'm a little blood-thirsty sometimes when I get
"overwrought".)

{O.O}

Re: US winning war on spam ?!?!?!

["Jim C. Nasby" <de...@decibel.org>]

On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 09:28:26AM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Sounds to me like they're claiming CAN-SPAM is a victory... They aren't 
> claiming final victory yet, but they are claiming CAN-SPAM is providing 
> consumer protection by acting as a deterrent and enforcement tool.  This is 
> true, but they fail to note aspect appears to have short-term effects at 
> best.

Actually, that's not surprising as spam filtering improves. I'd estimate
that 90+% of spam never makes it to human eyes now, which also means
that the people sending that spam are less likely to be prosecuted. The
exceptions are people who are sending enough spam to get the attention
of big ISPs due to the amount of money it's costing them.
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect                decibel@decibel.org 
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"

Re: US winning war on spam ?!?!?!

[Matt Kettler <mk...@comcast.net>]

At 03:00 PM 12/21/2005, Justin Mason wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>
>Matt Kettler writes:
> > But the reality of the numbers won't stop the FTC from tooting it's own
> > horn and claiming victory.. Unfortunately for us, this will likely result
> > in some major spammers unleashing a mass-scale deluge just to show they're
> > wrong. The best I think we can hope for is that a few of them might get
> > reckless in this endeavor and get nailed.
>
>by the way note that the FTC did *NOT* say this.  The news stories didn't
>quite emphasise the real points.
>
>The FTC report (
>http://www.ftc.gov/reports/canspam05/051220canspamrpt.pdf) actually said:

The report itself may not be hawking the can-spam beyond those two ways, 
but their summaries have broader endorsements in them

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/12/buttonpushers.htm

"The FTC also issued a report assessing the effectiveness of the CAN-SPAM 
Act which concludes that technological anti-spam advances have reduced the 
amount of spam reaching consumers' in-boxes. Moreover, rigorous law 
enforcement has had a deterrent effect on spammers. As a result, consumers 
are receiving less spam now than they were receiving in 2003. "

"The report to Congress, "Effectiveness and Enforcement of the CAN-SPAM 
Act," concludes that the Act is effective in providing protection for 
consumers, and that the Act is being enforced aggressively by state and 
federal law enforcers and the private sector. "

Sounds to me like they're claiming CAN-SPAM is a victory... They aren't 
claiming final victory yet, but they are claiming CAN-SPAM is providing 
consumer protection by acting as a deterrent and enforcement tool.  This is 
true, but they fail to note aspect appears to have short-term effects at best.

Re: US winning war on spam ?!?!?!

[Loren Wilton <lw...@earthlink.net>]

> But the reality of the numbers won't stop the FTC from tooting it's own
> horn and claiming victory.. Unfortunately for us, this will likely result
> in some major spammers unleashing a mass-scale deluge just to show they're
> wrong. The best I think we can hope for is that a few of them might get
> reckless in this endeavor and get nailed.

Personally I thought it was amusing that they implied that the increase in
phishing is also the result of can-spam.  Your Goverment Helping You.

        Loren

Greylisting enhancements (was: US winning war on spam ?!?!?!)

[Kenneth Porter <sh...@sewingwitch.com>]

--On Wednesday, December 21, 2005 2:39 PM -0500 Matt Kettler 
<mk...@evi-inc.com> wrote:

> Perhaps a better term is "selective greylisting"
>
> I'm Using milter-greylists's acls. My default is to whitelist (ie: not
> greylist) but I have an extensive set of ACLs that use regexes to
> greylist most dialup hosts, and hosts with no RDNS. I also greylist all
> of apnic and lacnic by IP.

Interesting idea.

Over on the MIMEDefang list we came up with an idea for "distributed" 
greylisting, in which one shares one's learned white list via a reverse 
DNSBL. Others can then use regular DNSBL mechanisms with trusted peers to 
allow newcomers to bypass one's greylisting.

Re: US winning war on spam ?!?!?!

[Matt Kettler <mk...@evi-inc.com>]

Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 11:42:18AM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
> 
>>My tagged spam rate at the end of January 2005 (2.8k spam/day) was higher than
>>my peak rate in the past month (2.3k spam/day), but I suspect this is largely
>>due to the greylist.
> 
> 
> Dumb question... how does one do 'partial greylisting'?

Perhaps a better term is "selective greylisting"

I'm Using milter-greylists's acls. My default is to whitelist (ie: not greylist)
but I have an extensive set of ACLs that use regexes to greylist most dialup
hosts, and hosts with no RDNS. I also greylist all of apnic and lacnic by IP.

Hence, depending on where you come from, you might be greylisted, and you might
not. I greylist only a selective part of the hosts on the net, instead of the
usual approach of greylisting everything.

Re: US winning war on spam ?!?!?!

["Jim C. Nasby" <de...@decibel.org>]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 11:42:18AM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
> My tagged spam rate at the end of January 2005 (2.8k spam/day) was higher than
> my peak rate in the past month (2.3k spam/day), but I suspect this is largely
> due to the greylist.

Dumb question... how does one do 'partial greylisting'?

> > Fortunately,
> > thanks to SpamAssassin, the numbers hitting my users mailboxs are
> > extremely low. My gratitude to all who have contributed to the
> > development of SA.
> 
> Ditto that. Bigtime.
 
+1
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect                decibel@decibel.org 
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"

Re: US winning war on spam ?!?!?!

[Matt Kettler <mk...@evi-inc.com>]

Stephen Sloan wrote:
> The SPAM levels hitting my servers has NEVER been higher. 

That's not inconsistent with the MX Logic data. While you can't draw any
conclusions about it being a "new record high", you also can't draw any
conclusions it's not. You can also say November 2005 clearly above the annual
average for both 2004 and 2005.

I on the other hand can't say it's never been higher, but that's because I
implemented partial greylisting last march, causing a drop off in my inbound
spam rates.

My tagged spam rate at the end of January 2005 (2.8k spam/day) was higher than
my peak rate in the past month (2.3k spam/day), but I suspect this is largely
due to the greylist.

> Fortunately,
> thanks to SpamAssassin, the numbers hitting my users mailboxs are
> extremely low. My gratitude to all who have contributed to the
> development of SA.

Ditto that. Bigtime.

Re: US winning war on spam ?!?!?!

[Stephen Sloan <ss...@mincocorp.com>]

The SPAM levels hitting my servers has NEVER been higher. Fortunately, 
thanks to SpamAssassin, the numbers hitting my users mailboxs are extremely 
low. My gratitude to all who have contributed to the development of SA.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Matt Kettler" <mk...@comcast.net>
To: "'SpamAssassin'" <us...@spamassassin.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: US winning war on spam ?!?!?!


> At 04:14 AM 12/21/2005, Martin Hepworth wrote:
>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4547474.stm
>>
>>Not according to my stats....but the users don't get the spam anymore ;-)
>
> I find it amusing that most of the stats in that article are the combined 
> affects of spam filters and the can-spam law, but they declare can-spam a 
> success as a result. i.e.: the quoted AOL numbers are indicative of better 
> filtering, as it reflects mail received by the users, not the network.
>
> The only number they cite that might be indicative of a reduction in spam 
> is MX Logic reported that for 2005 spam was 68% of their inbound email, 
> compared to 77% last year.
>
> However, if they were to read MX Logic's full data they'd see that while 
> spam had a low back in may (60%), by November it recovered (78%) to levels 
> higher than the average of 2004. This results in a low average, but 
> current rates are as strong as ever.
>
> http://www.mxlogic.com/news_events/press_releases/12_13_05_CAN_SPAM.html
>
> That tells me that spam took a hit in early 2005, and it's now on the 
> rise, and has surpassed last years levels.
>
> In fact, if I had to guess why may was a "low month" for spam, I'd say it 
> had to do with Massachusets freezing some of Leo's operations on May 11th.
> http://www.ago.state.ma.us/sp.cfm?pageid=986&id=1416
>
> While admittedly Leo was sued under the can-spam act, it looks like the 
> relief it gave us was quite temporary. It looks like Leo rebuilt most of 
> his operation by August, and was back in full-swing by October.
>
> But the reality of the numbers won't stop the FTC from tooting it's own 
> horn and claiming victory.. Unfortunately for us, this will likely result 
> in some major spammers unleashing a mass-scale deluge just to show they're 
> wrong. The best I think we can hope for is that a few of them might get 
> reckless in this endeavor and get nailed.
>
> 

Re: US winning war on spam ?!?!?!

[Mike Jackson <mj...@barking-dog.net>]

> But the reality of the numbers won't stop the FTC from tooting it's own 
> horn and claiming victory.. Unfortunately for us, this will likely result 
> in some major spammers unleashing a mass-scale deluge just to show they're 
> wrong. The best I think we can hope for is that a few of them might get 
> reckless in this endeavor and get nailed.

It's a variation on the old joke..."I could tell the politician was lying: 
His lips were moving." 

Re: US winning war on spam ?!?!?!

[Matt Kettler <mk...@comcast.net>]

At 04:14 AM 12/21/2005, Martin Hepworth wrote:

>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4547474.stm
>
>Not according to my stats....but the users don't get the spam anymore ;-)

I find it amusing that most of the stats in that article are the combined 
affects of spam filters and the can-spam law, but they declare can-spam a 
success as a result. i.e.: the quoted AOL numbers are indicative of better 
filtering, as it reflects mail received by the users, not the network.

The only number they cite that might be indicative of a reduction in spam 
is MX Logic reported that for 2005 spam was 68% of their inbound email, 
compared to 77% last year.

However, if they were to read MX Logic's full data they'd see that while 
spam had a low back in may (60%), by November it recovered (78%) to levels 
higher than the average of 2004. This results in a low average, but current 
rates are as strong as ever.

http://www.mxlogic.com/news_events/press_releases/12_13_05_CAN_SPAM.html

That tells me that spam took a hit in early 2005, and it's now on the rise, 
and has surpassed last years levels.

In fact, if I had to guess why may was a "low month" for spam, I'd say it 
had to do with Massachusets freezing some of Leo's operations on May 11th.
http://www.ago.state.ma.us/sp.cfm?pageid=986&id=1416

While admittedly Leo was sued under the can-spam act, it looks like the 
relief it gave us was quite temporary. It looks like Leo rebuilt most of 
his operation by August, and was back in full-swing by October.

But the reality of the numbers won't stop the FTC from tooting it's own 
horn and claiming victory.. Unfortunately for us, this will likely result 
in some major spammers unleashing a mass-scale deluge just to show they're 
wrong. The best I think we can hope for is that a few of them might get 
reckless in this endeavor and get nailed.

Re: [OT] US winning war on spam ?!?!?!

[jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>]

From: "Matt Kettler" <mk...@comcast.net>

> At 07:13 PM 12/21/2005, jdow wrote:
>>From: "Martin Hepworth" <ma...@solid-state-logic.com>
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4547474.stm
>>>Not according to my stats....but the users don't get the spam anymore ;-)
>>
>>It's the BBC, for crying out loud. They've wiped their own reputation
>>with so many dirty cloths they've used it all up. I never expect any
>>serious veracity from them. I read them mostly for the entertainment
>>value of their egregious mistakes and biases.

Worse yet it's the US FTC that made this pronouncement. "We're the
government. We're here to help you!" NOT!

> OT humor of relevance here:
> 
> http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20051209

I follow that religiously. (And I tend to trust Wikipedia where politics
is not a major concern. Of course, in that sort of case I do not trust any
one source at all.)

{^_-}

Re: [OT] US winning war on spam ?!?!?!

[Matt Kettler <mk...@comcast.net>]

At 07:13 PM 12/21/2005, jdow wrote:
>From: "Martin Hepworth" <ma...@solid-state-logic.com>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4547474.stm
>>Not according to my stats....but the users don't get the spam anymore ;-)
>
>It's the BBC, for crying out loud. They've wiped their own reputation
>with so many dirty cloths they've used it all up. I never expect any
>serious veracity from them. I read them mostly for the entertainment
>value of their egregious mistakes and biases.

OT humor of relevance here:

http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20051209

Re: US winning war on spam ?!?!?!

[jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>]

From: "Martin Hepworth" <ma...@solid-state-logic.com>
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4547474.stm
> 
> Not according to my stats....but the users don't get the spam anymore ;-)

It's the BBC, for crying out loud. They've wiped their own reputation
with so many dirty cloths they've used it all up. I never expect any
serious veracity from them. I read them mostly for the entertainment
value of their egregious mistakes and biases.

{^_-}