Happy birthday, spam!

[BillC]

Yes, it's true: spam reaches the venerable age of 30 this weekend. Three decades ago it was brought kicking and screaming into the world, courtesy of a marketer from DEC.

Perhaps the sad thing about this is that spam is in fact older than many people who are reading this message. I find that depressing.

 

[Ohmer]

Our humble spam filter that filters mail for 6000 users blocked 2.0 million messages while only delivering 35 thousand in the last 24 hours. 98% of email is now junk. What a difference 30 years makes.

 

[webfusion]

Would it be technically possible to implement an alternative to the current email system?

With Microsoft about to invest some $50-billion to acquire yahoo, I wonder if there couldn't just be a way for them to develop a secondary 'no-spam' internet-based email protocol that is based on a small PAYMENT for using it.

Just wonderin'

 

[Furi]

Would it be technically possible to implement an alternative to the current email system?

With Microsoft about to invest some $50-billion to acquire yahoo, I wonder if there couldn't just be a way for them to develop a secondary 'no-spam' internet-based email protocol that is based on a small PAYMENT for using it.

Just wonderin'

That is a fantastic Idea, however to make up the initial investment I think it wise to make sure there is a viable sucker customer base, I would suggest maybe sending an email to the many current net users that use email the most, advertising this product and it's proposed pricing structure,

possibly with the title, "Are you fed up with Unsolicited Commercial Email?"

 

[monoman]

Would it be technically possible to implement an alternative to the current email system?

With Microsoft about to invest some $50-billion to acquire yahoo, I wonder if there couldn't just be a way for them to develop a secondary 'no-spam' internet-based email protocol that is based on a small PAYMENT for using it.

Just wonderin'

I've thought you could have a system that if you send an email to someone who doesn't have you in a 'trusted list' then you'd have to enter one of those obscured caption thingys.

Some emails have to be auto sent - such as from a bank where they have thousands of customers. However, as a customer, you'd just add the bank's email address, along with your mates, to the list.

 

[Ohmer]

Would it be technically possible to implement an alternative to the current email system?

With Microsoft about to invest some $50-billion to acquire yahoo, I wonder if there couldn't just be a way for them to develop a secondary 'no-spam' internet-based email protocol that is based on a small PAYMENT for using it.

Just wonderin'

Why do you hate net neutrality?

 

[grmcdorman]

I've thought you could have a system that if you send an email to someone who doesn't have you in a 'trusted list' then you'd have to enter one of those obscured caption thingys.

Some emails have to be auto sent - such as from a bank where they have thousands of customers. However, as a customer, you'd just add the bank's email address, along with your mates, to the list.

Something like this exists now, in various forms; basically software for your e-mail client that, if the sender isn't known, sends back a message saying, in essence, "I don't know you. To get mail through to me, do this:" where this could be a particular e-mail reply or some action on a web page.

Part of the problem, though, is that by replying to spam, the spammers know your e-mail address is "live" - which allows them to sell it to other spammers as part of a list of "known good" e-mail addresses. It also doesn't work for valid commercial messages (such as from banks), and may not work if the spammer happens to use a forged "from" address that's already known to your mailer.

 

[monoman]

... and may not work if the spammer happens to use a forged "from" address that's already known to your mailer.

It'd be interesting to know what percentage of emails sent contain a spoofed sender that is in the receivers address book.

As more and more people take up the option of requiring validation, it would be harder for spammers to successfully send emails with a worm to create spoofs.

They'd be left with guessing the email addresses in someone's list - such as major banks. There's always some unprotected people who will open these and in turn give the spammer their email addresses.

However, if over time you realise one of your friends is a bit of an idiot, you can make them validate their emails sent to you which in turn requires the spammer to.

After a probationary period of, say, a year, you add your friend back to the trusted list.

 

[monoman]

Also, why is it so easy for these worms to get the addresses from the receivers address book? Aren't they encrypted by default?

 

[Furi]

I remember back when I was only a cynical Sysad, the company domain getting absolutely bombarded with sript formed spam, using either the recipients Email addy as the sender or admin/sales/support/news/abuse @ companydomain.

there was so much of it, my it almost filled my /dev/null

TBH I don't suffer spam (when my home network is working) my spam bot kills most and I delete anything that I am not expecting, getting annoyed at spam at home is like getting annoyed by swat the fly or bash the bishop flash ads, or porn popups.

ETA Although the Fly swatting one, had annoying sound on it. and was on Tucows and various other useful sites for ages, I just told any site I found it on that I would not revisit while they allowed unvetted annoying ads on it, ARRRRRGH

 

[Arus808]

Something like this exists now, in various forms; basically software for your e-mail client that, if the sender isn't known, sends back a message saying, in essence, "I don't know you. To get mail through to me, do this:" where this could be a particular e-mail reply or some action on a web page.

yup and its the wrong way to handle the problem. ITs what as known as a call-back, which if a spammer normally does and puts an innocent bystanders' email address in the return/reply field, that person gets all those "please prove who you are" emails by the thousands (this happened to my work email, for which we had to BLACKLIST the mail server that was sending those stupid "prove who you are" replies to a spam that was sent by a spammer)

the EMAIL system needs a complete overhaul. Software that read email needs to be redone (both installed and online versions) need to follow a strict format.

that is the only solution to beating the spam problem.

Part of the problem, though, is that by replying to spam, the spammers know your e-mail address is "live" - which allows them to sell it to other spammers as part of a list of "known good" e-mail addresses. It also doesn't work for valid commercial messages (such as from banks), and may not work if the spammer happens to use a forged "from" address that's already known to your mailer.

agreed. and the only reason why spammers are in business is because PEOPLE buy the crap that these spammers peddle. Spam is the cheapest form of invasive advertising out there. Spend $5000 to send out millions of message, and it only takes 1% to respond or buy the crap, that they make back their money.

and yes the spammers business is selling your email address to other spammers. (one spammer site, i saw is a cd containing 1 billion email addresses for $220)