[linux_general] RE: [ale] spam

Mon May 12 22:23:29 EDT 2003

On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 08:37:13PM -0400, Greg wrote:
> 	so they are "hijacking" someone else's bandwidth - like stealing cable. I
> doubt that.  They are using what they paid for in the majority of cases.  I
> don't' know many people on the Internet for free.

You're kidding, right?  Just last week, one of my co-workers asked me to
look at his linux box, which was getting very sluggish.  I looked at the
box, and >75% of the CPU time was in exim.  He hadn't locked down his
email config, so his box was an open relay, and someone he didn't know
was using it to relay spam.  That's just a single incident I've had
personal experience with.

Here is a link to a recent trojan/virus that turns your computer into a
spam proxy: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/30414.html

Many spammers just use a "throwaway" account on AOL.  They use one of
the many "1000 hours free!" AOL CDs to sign up for an account, and send
as many spams as they can before they get booted.  These accounts don't
cost them anything.

> 	I kinda doubt the ISP's are seriously spending a lot of money  dealing with
> spam.  There is little to no return on doing that.  That is  probably one of
> the problems.  But since you are the one saying it, back it up with numbers
> or something else.

I can't decide if your pulling my leg or not.  ISPs aren't spending a
lot of money dealing with spam?  How can you use the web at all and not
be inundated with stories about the costs of spam?  Here's an article on
AOL, MSN, and Yahoo joining forces to fight spam:
http://netscape.com.com/2100-1105-998511.html?tag=nl
There's no dollar figures there, but it's pretty clear they're serious
about fighting spam.

> 
> > just sick and tired of deleting all the ads about how to enlarge their
> > members, or maybe they're worried about their kids seeing the explicit
> > porn that was sent to their email address.
> 
>  The cost of living in the modern world.  TV, radio, and the print media
> shower us with the same stuff.  Part of the job of being a parent.

I've never seen explicit pictures of a woman having sex with a horse on
broadcast TV.  I've never seen bukakke photos in the print media.  But I
have seen both of these in unsolicited email messages.

I don't think I'm shirking my responsibility as a parent when I say that
these kinds of emails are inappropriate for children.

> 
> >
> > > are not like water and gas - once the infrastructure is up, it
> > is irrelevant
> > > whether I get 1 bit or 10 GB of data.  Unlike the mail, it does
> > not end up
> >
> > Really?  Guess I should quit spending the $40/month for my cable modem.
> > I can just go back to dialup, since I can transfer 10 GB of data at the
> > same rate as 1 bit.  That's pretty amazing.
> 
> No, you are paying for a BIGGER pipeline not one with more pressure.  Do we
> need to discuss the laws of physics that deal with this ?  It is in some
> ways like fluid dynamics.  You are paying for MORE bits - as electricity,
> unlike water has no pressure, so you are paying for a greater volume of
> information for a given standard of time.  You don't understand what you are
> saying with regards to rate - I assure you that dial up and T1 moves pretty
> much at the same speed.  The difference is the width of the pipeline.  The
> point is that whether I get 1 bit or 1000 bits I pay the same - so I have
> not paid any money to spammers for this.

I'm well aware of the difference between latency and transfer speed.
But the difference between 1 bit and 10 GB is most definitely not
irrelevant.  Bandwidth is not infinite, nor is it free.  Just like
electricity, it costs money to maintain that infrastructure.  And just
like water lines, bigger pipes cost more money; but even the biggest
pipes can only carry so much.  If 100 spammers are each sending 10 MB/s
of spam over your ISP's network, how much legitimate traffic can go
through?

> > Again, *you* don't have to pay anyone, but your ISP has to hire more
> > admins to deal with all the wasted bandwidth.  And they have to hire
> > more support staff to deal with all the complaints.
> > >
> 
> 	How much ???  Let's see some creditable numbers. How would hiring more
> admins help the bandwidth ?  that's limited by their connection to the

They have to hire more admins to deal with the *wasted* bandwidth, i.e.,
the bandwidth taken up by spam.  These admins do things like install
filters and keep a constant watch on their email servers.

> Internet.  So, if I hire 20 more admins my home system would show an
> increase in bandwidth?  How much ?  How much if I just spend more time on it
> ?  And just exactly how responsive are ISPs to spam complaints anyway ?  I
> strongly suspect they hire a few folks to do it and don't increase it
> whether spam increases or not - especially if all they have to do is
> "blacklist" the IP after some perfunctory investigation.

Do you really think there would be a spam problem if all we had to do
was blacklist a few IP addresses?  Don't be so naive.  If you're still
not convinced that spam is a problem, I urge you to visit
http://www.cauce.org .  There's a wealth of information there.  You
could also go to slashdot and search for spam.  Or read this interview
with Barry Shein, who started the world's first full-service dialup ISP:
http://www.internetweek.com/breakingNews/INW20021219S0003 .  Or visit
http://spamcop.net .  Or look at the leading stories from the past week
or so on MSN, yahoo, cnn, wired, slashdot, ...

> No, everything I have said is a fact, whether in your opinion it makes sense
> is irrelevant. A fact is a fact.  I have yet to see any reasonable breakdown
> of the costs of spam, though it could be argued that it uses a lot of folks

You cannot possibly have looked.

A google search for "spam cost breakdown" turned up this link on a
research firm: http://www.ferris.com/offer/spam.html .  And this link on
some spam statistics: http://www.mailarmory.com/resources/stats/ .  Spam
cost business about $9 billion in 2002, and it's estimated at $10
billion for 2003.

> time and that is probably the biggest source of monetary loss.  However, I
> strongly suspect that the average Internet user just takes it laying down
> and that is why ISP's haven't done anything about it - until now.  There

ISPs have been battling spam for *years*.  My AT&T Worldnet dialup
account has had spam filtering software by Brightmail
(http://www.brightmail.com/, there's another link for you) since at
least 1998.

> However, so are you and others.  A well placed campaign to work over your
> elected officials would also help, as spammers are universally hated and
> unlike the print industry I don't think (could be wrong) that spammers have
> any industry lobbyists working for them.  Good Luck (and yeah, I am serious)

Many states have already passed legislation against spam, and the FTC
just recently held a public conference on spam.  I don't think we need
to badger our elected officials any more about this.
-- 
Jason Day                                       jasonday at
http://jasonday.home.att.net                    worldnet dot att dot net

"Of course I'm paranoid, everyone is trying to kill me."
    -- Weyoun-6, Star Trek: Deep Space 9
_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale