Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] Call your Rep. now to oppose S.877 - "CAN SPAM"act

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Jeremy Portzer <jeremyp AT pobox.com>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] Call your Rep. now to oppose S.877 - "CAN SPAM"act
  • Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:29:19 -0500

On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 01:16, Sil Greene wrote:
> Well, all spam (in theory) has a valid link. Whether it's the From:
> or Reply-To: address being a valid account (even a mail drop), or whether
> an embedded link in the body of the message is used, the only way it's
> profitable is to be able to accept replies.

No, most spam does not accept replies through e-mail. Some spammers do,
like the 409 scams, but a lot of spam contains other means to contact
the company being advertised, such as:
* URLs to web sites -- most common method
* Fax or telephone numbers for ordering information
* 900 numbers
The vast majority of spam does NOT have a valid From: or Reply-To:
address.

> So it may be unreasonable to
> assume valid header addresses in every case, but somewhere in the message
> is a valid connection. The problem is to algorithmically isolate and
> utilize the valid.

Not really. A lot of spam is sent through relay servers that are open
inadvertently by incompetent admins. The trace will end when you get to
this relay server. You won't be able to track down the actual sender,
especially if they used an "anonymous" connection like an Internet cafe,
unsecured wireless access point, or software that installs itself
trojan-horse style on innocent victims' computers.

> The approach I've described only depends on finding the valid. It's nice
> to avoid creaming your network with attempts at invalid connections, but
> that's not a necessary part of the system I've described. So an
> individual using this system could afford to try all paths -- the From,
> the Reply-To, and any embedded links -- and since the user isn't sending
> thousands/millions of bogus replies to each spam, they won't incur the
> same costs to their local network.
>
> Think of it as an anti-spammer DDOS -- two pings each, from a metric
> buttload of machines, will bring down the mightiest of servers.

I don't think so. Two pings each, times 300 spams, with only about 5
spams where the "ping" actually does anything, means 590 wasted
"pings". Not a good use of your computing resources.

Personally I use spamassassin -- www.spamassassin.org to filter my spam;
I get about 100-200 spams per day (seems to vary widely), and only about
1-2 get past and into my INBOX. But I understand filtering is a passive
approach, which is why I support appropriate legislation to at least go
after the spammers in the U.S. S.877 is NOT appropriate, due to the
reasons outlined by CAUCE in the message I forwarded.

--Jeremy

--
/---------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Jeremy Portzer jeremyp AT pobox.com trilug.org/~jeremy |
| GPG Fingerprint: 712D 77C7 AB2D 2130 989F E135 6F9F F7BC CC1A 7B92 |
\---------------------------------------------------------------------/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page