Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security Spam

New Spam Site Found Every Three Seconds 164

Posted by samzenpus
from the spam-sausage-spam-spam-spam-mail-and-spam dept.
Stony Stevenson writes "New figures suggest that 92.3 percent of all email sent globally during the first three months of 2008 was spam. The data from Sophos also indicated that 23,300 new spam-related web pages were created every day during the period, or one about every three seconds. For the first time Turkey's contribution to the global spam problem puts it in the top three offending countries. Compromised computers in Turkey are now responsible for relaying 5.9 percent of the world's junk email, compared to 3.8 percent in the final quarter of 2007."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Spam Site Found Every Three Seconds

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 16, 2008 @10:25PM (#23099278)
    I love it. I can sync my computer to it.
  • We should be able to kill 'em. I'd hate to advocate additional regulations but, well, something really should be done. Though, honestly, I've learned to delete it over the many years and now it is really just a pain in the balls more than anything.
    • by zappepcs (820751) on Wednesday April 16, 2008 @10:32PM (#23099334) Journal
      If spam gives you a pain in the balls, you are eating it wrong.
    • by cynicsreport (1125235) on Wednesday April 16, 2008 @10:41PM (#23099400) Homepage

      ..... something really should be done....

      Yes, sir! something should be done about spam!
      And, while we're at it, someone should really do something about domain squatting.
      Oh year, and what about phishing? Why isn't anyone doing anything about that!?
      Seriously, guys; get on it. I'll be watching the third season of Seinfeld DVD.
      • by KGIII (973947)
        I don't have a good answer as to what should be done. I could opine but, well, I'm really not qualified. (Not that that's stopped a lot of us, myself included, from forming opinions so I'll give it a shot.) Anyhow...

        My idea is that if x% of the traffic coming out of a country is abusive then those controlling, let's pick the U.N. for now but it could be another group of countries, then 100% of that traffic will just be bit-bucketted at the gateways. I have absolutely no clue how that would work but I'm th
        • by 1u3hr (530656) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @12:45AM (#23100328)
          My idea is that if x% of the traffic coming out of a country is abusive then those controlling..., then 100% of that traffic will just be bit-bucketted at the gateways

          If you block a country because it is relaying spam, it will be switched to go via another country before the week is out. Meanwhile millions of innocent people will find themselves cut off.

          Specifically, if required, then the U.S. of A. should be subject to these same rules.

          You bet. Clean up your own act first. I'm not holding my breath. Easier to blame nasty foreigners.

          Did you RTFA:

          The US continues to relay far more spam than any other country,
          And see the ROKSO list [spamhaus.org], note the nationalities.

          I live in Hong Kong. About 80% of the spam I get is from the US. And yet I find my emails often bounced from US addresses because of similar enlightened attitudes.

          Most of the world's spam ORIGINATES in the USA, is PAID FOR by USA companies. Your government does nothing to stop it. (What is it, two or three prosecutions in the last 5 years?) American companies lobby to prevent any effective measures to stop spam. Bit bucket Florida and you might make a dent in it for a while. But attack the source, not the routing.

          • by oni (41625)
            Most of the world's spam ORIGINATES in the USA, is PAID FOR by USA companies.

            I disagree. Most of the world's spam may be sent by zombie computers in the US, but it originates in countries like Russia, where the owners of those large bot-nets reside. And the spam isn't being sent by US companies. Stock pump-and-dump schemes seem to come mostly from Europe.

            The reason so much spam comes from the US is simply that we have so many idiots with zombie computers over here. The "owners" of those zombie nets are
            • by Tony Hoyle (11698)
              That would be why nearly all spam references US companies and quotes the millions I could make in US dollars, then.

              If you want more enlighenment I suggest you look at the list of the worlds most prolific spammers, and specifically what country they reside in: http://www.spamhaus.org/Rokso/ [spamhaus.org]
              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by oni (41625)
                Looks like you could use some enlightenment yourself. here's their top 10 list [spamhaus.org]. According to them, the worst spammer is Russian. Number 2 is in the Ukraine. You have to go all the way down to number 10 before you see anyone in the US.
            • by 1u3hr (530656)
              t it originates in countries like Russia, where the owners of those large bot-nets reside. And the spam isn't being sent by US companies. Stock pump-and-dump schemes seem to come mostly from Europe.

              "Originates" not "comes from". I still say USA. Anyway, at the moment most of my spam is about viagra and penis enhanceement, and references US sites. (Honourable mention to Nigerian 419ers, but these are small in volume.) I haven't seen any stock spam for a few months, actually.

              More importantly, almost all

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by PitaBred (632671)
      I personally advocate "don't be a douche" vigilantism. If too many people complain about you being a jackass, you get your picture in the local paper/news website as the Jerk of the Week.
    • by misleb (129952)

      We should be able to kill 'em. I'd hate to advocate additional regulations but, well, something really should be done.


      You mean like spam filtering? Seriously, there's no excuse these days to be using a mail account that doesn't have decent filtering. You shouldn't be getting more than a few spams a week. I realize that it doesn't solve the problem, but oh well.

  • by EmbeddedJanitor (597831) on Wednesday April 16, 2008 @10:32PM (#23099326)
    Yet again we see ranking used in a silly way. It's the numbers that are important.

    Third placed Turkey and tenth placed UK are wthin a +- 6% band, probably close to the margin of error in the analysis.

    • How to make Gmail the spam target of absolute last resort.

      The goal of this suggestion is to intelligently leverage and focus Google's expertise and credibility against the spammers and their accomplices. But where will the intelligence come from? From me, from you, from *ANYONE* who has a Gmail account and who wants to help oppose the annoying evil that is spam. Aggressively implemented, it could make Gmail into Spammer Heck--maybe to the point where only a fool would send spam to Gmail. (Yeah, there are pl
  • I dont get it... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by repapetilto (1219852) on Wednesday April 16, 2008 @10:32PM (#23099332)
    I never get spam, I have my school email address I use for trusted sites and people while everything else goes to a yahoo account. The yahoo account is filled with spam, but since I only have to check the newest mail whenever I use it its not a big deal. Am I missing something here?
    • by chromatic (9471) on Wednesday April 16, 2008 @10:35PM (#23099368) Homepage

      Am I missing something here?

      Yes; it takes plenty of processor time, electricity, memory, bandwidth, and administrator time to make sure that you don't get spam. Also, not everyone uses e-mail the same way you do. Some of us actually want to hear from people we don't know.

      • So you're saying that if I simply had two yahoo accounts and treated one the same as I currently treat the school one, I would get spam? I guess I wouldn't know but itd be interesting to find out.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Just because you don't give out your email address doesn't mean someone else can't get it. Website compromises, those idiots who let facebook/myspace/whateverCrapSite log in to their email account to get more address', worm attacks. Hell I got bored and signed my boss up for a whole bunch of porn sites with his home account (he thought he was safe mwahaha).

          Also for some reason I am more likely to get spam on my hotmail/gmail accounts than I am on my work account, and I don't hand those emails out to anybod
        • i do exactly that, for the past 7 years or so (since 2001, i think, not sure) i have had 2 email accounts, one is personal, the other is used for online forms, registrations, notifications, ebay, amazon shopping, etc.

          it started as an experement. i wanted to see if my gender made a difference in the number of 'v1agra' ads that i got, so one account listed me as male, the other, female.
          (it made no difference - aparently, spammers think females want to have a bigger pen1s too)

          while my main yahoo account (myr
          • Re:I dont get it... (Score:5, Interesting)

            by jimicus (737525) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @04:12AM (#23101402)
            i think all these anti-spam ideas miss the big picture: if no one bought products from spam, they wouldnt do it. we should be going after the idiots who reply to spam.

            IIRC there was someone who tried an experiment some time ago. They tried to buy some of the v1|4|g|r|4 that they'd seen advertised in spam.

            They couldn't find a single spam which actually led to someone genuinely trying to sell something. I think they concluded that spam had mostly become a pyramid scheme, with a handful of people at the top trying (with some success) to persuade everyone below that they could make lots of money from spam - all they needed to do was buy this mailing list software and that list of email addresses...
            • Re:I dont get it... (Score:4, Informative)

              by 1u3hr (530656) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @08:04AM (#23102404)
              IIRC there was someone who tried an experiment some time ago. They tried to buy some of the v1|4|g|r|4 that they'd seen advertised in spam. They couldn't find a single spam which actually led to someone genuinely trying to sell something.

              Try it yourself. I just did, went to my trash folder and opened the first mail. Took me to sale-drug.com, which certainly looks like they have stuff for sale (or at least, they'll take my money). No need to take anyone's word for this, we all have plenty of spam.

              After a few months with most of the spam being stock scams, it's back to good old penis enlargers, generic viagra and cialis. It's all so fucking repulsive and insulting.

          • by Sigma 7 (266129)

            i do exactly that, for the past 7 years or so (since 2001, i think, not sure) i have had 2 email accounts, one is personal, the other is used for online forms, registrations, notifications, ebay, amazon shopping, etc.
            [...]
            It takes very little effort on my part.

            for me, spam is not an issue.

            My first e-mail address was cluttered with spam, and the primary method to access it was through a 2400 baud modem. The interface later improved where you could use web-mail alongside a faster connection - however, the quantity of spam compared to legitimate messages still made it a lot of work to go through. (It also had a size limit for "possible junk" but didn't delete the most likely spam items.)

            My second e-mail address, even though it has a 6.0 MB limit, eventually received enough spam on a daily bas

    • by kylehase (982334) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @02:21AM (#23100880)
      Even if you only give your private address to your friends, you must have smart friends who NEVER:
      • Included you on a To: or CC: list of recipients,
      • Used your email address to search for you on social sites,
      • Sent you e-cards/e-invites
      That's pretty amazing. I'm sure most of the spam in my "friends only" or "business only" email accounts were not leaked by me but by a trusted party who didn't know better.
      • by Stellian (673475) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @06:10AM (#23101846)

        ...you must have smart friends who NEVER:
        Your smart friends must also never store your email address anywhere on their harddrive (for example, the browser cache), so that it can't be picked up by the spam sending bot that infected thier machine and does a global scan for "someone@somewhere". Or, only have friends that never get infected. Between the two, you can either:
        - have only geek friend
        - have no friends
        Take you pick - I don't know what's worst.
      • Re:I dont get it... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by niktemadur (793971) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @06:31AM (#23101920)
        * Included you on a To: or CC: list of recipients,
        * Used your email address to search for you on social sites,
        * Sent you e-cards/e-invites


        There is an astonishing number of people who've had email accounts for years now, and still do the very first and worst thing you mention in your no-no list. I guess it's the most convenient (read: lazy) way to re-send the same lame joke to fifty people. The CEO of the company I work for keeps doing this in my business account!
        Or those blasted chain emails. I can imagine that many of those were created by spammers harvesting addresses, exploiting peoples' superstitions in machiavellian fashion.

        Back in the days of dialup, when the "Dalai Lama wisdom tidbits, send this to twenty people you know" type pps files were already bugging me beyond belief, some bitch that somebody knew that somebody knew that I knew had the nerve to send out a gigantic list of CC: recipients to hundreds of people, with no message whatsoever, just the headline "Let's see what happens". Needless to say, she was bombarded with hate mail, but it was too late. In a few months' time, I was getting about a hundred and fifty spam mails a day, so I created a new address, notified my inbox contacts and asked them to never, ever put me on a CC: list.

        It worked for a while, then I started getting spam again, and I couldn't figure out why. Then it hit me: "Damn, I used my address to register in Amazon (also buying stuff through its' independent affiliate sellers), Paypal, eBay and the like". Could that be an additional reason?
        • by Hatta (162192)
          What's wrong with CC? If I have information that everyone in my lab needs to know, I put it in an email and CC everyone in the lab. What's wrong with that?
          • I think the GP was objecting more to people CCing lots of people (who they may not know very well) the same useless jokes.

            I get it a lot, it drives me mad. I don't give out my main personal email address to certain people for this reason.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jimicus (737525)
      while everything else goes to a yahoo account. The yahoo account is filled with spam...

      Then you do get spam. You've just chosen to deal with it by making sure it all goes to a particular address.

      As soon as you sign up to a public mailing list, post on usenet or put your email address on something not terribly well known for privacy (eg. Facebook), you'll find that - lo! - you get spam.

      Either that or your school's email admin staff have finally discovered the Holy Grail of anti-spam solutions. Perhaps they
      • Running a school e-mail server (small school)

        On the average day, our spam filter discards between 1 and 1.5 kilomessages, and allows ~.5 kilomessages through

        On the webmaster account, I get maybe 3 spam messages a day which filtered through the spam filter, and those are almost always tagged as "Probably Spam"

        our solution: spamassassin, keep the rules up to date, and we've tweaked a few scores very slightly.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by nxsty (942984)

      Am I missing something here?
      Yes. You are missing some very valuable offers from people who are eager to help you with your erection problems.
    • by nmg196 (184961) *
      > I never get spam,
      > Am I missing something here?

      Yes. You simply haven't got any SPAM *YET*. It's not you giving it out that you've got to worry about - if anybody you've ever emailed gets a virus, their whole address book could easily be uploaded to the net (since hundreds of viruses are created simply to harvest address books).

      One day you WILL get spam at that address and it doesn't take long once it's "out there" for you to get a LOT of spam.
      • Thats another thing, i never use address books and dont think anyone I know (not counting professional kind of emails) does either, I guess I just dont do that much emailing
  • by swillden (191260) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Wednesday April 16, 2008 @10:35PM (#23099360) Homepage Journal
    Movin' UP!
  • In case you are wondering, here is a related video courtesy of Monty Python:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE [youtube.com]

    Enjoy!

  • by relikx (1266746) on Wednesday April 16, 2008 @10:39PM (#23099392)
    I thought Turkey was a Muslim country, isn't spam some sort of shoulder meat? Oh right, they're secular.
  • Sturgeon's Law (Score:3, Informative)

    by CastrTroy (595695) on Wednesday April 16, 2008 @10:50PM (#23099488) Homepage
    Which once again proves Sturgeon's Law [wikipedia.org] which states that 90% of everything is crap. Or 92.3% in this case. Luckily for me gMail is pretty good at filtering the crap, son I only see about 1 spam for every 10 real emails. However, if I look in my junk folder, and compare that to the number of valid emails I receive, I would say that 99% of it is spam.
    • In the last 2 weeks I have gotten 80 emails (thats not including conversations but meh).

      In the same period I've gotten 25,818 spam.

      That means 99.69% of all my email is spam.
      • GMail deletes spam older than 30 days.

        In 30 days I've gotten 45 legitimate e-mails and 1792 spam. Most were automatically filtered, a few manually.

        So 97.55% here... hrm.

        An interesting percentage would be how much of the spam snuck through, but I don't have that metric.... couldn't be more than a couple dozen though.

  • Something interesting I noticed, is that since I signed up for Facebook, and all my friends that have signed up for Facebook have been getting the same spam. It's free offers and stuff. At least I don't get the enlarge my penis stuff.
    • You agreed to it when you installed your 23484039057 billion Facebook "Apps".
      • by billy901 (1158761)
        I've actually installed very few apps. Just to clarify it for you, I'm receiving all of the same stuff as my friends with different apps. I still get stuff like "Free Xbox!" Or "$500 in Kmart gift certificates!" Who would want either one? Give me a Linux box and $500 in WalMart gift certificates and I might open them up. :)
    • Re:Facebook (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 16, 2008 @11:17PM (#23099684)
      You think it's bad now, wait until the spammers can faceboogle you.
  • I was wondering if anyone had any numbers on the market share of IE vs other browsers in Turkey. A few quick google searches were hesitant to reveal anything.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Technician (215283)
      I was wondering if anyone had any numbers on the market share of IE vs other browsers in Turkey. A few quick google searches were hesitant to reveal anything.

      More interesting is the ratio of infected computers. It isn't stated. But take the population of the US and the Population of Turkey and do a comparison. The other interesting number is the number in Russia. Russia has a large population, but how many of them even own a computer or have internet? Something tells me they have a very high proportion
  • by pyrrhonist (701154) on Wednesday April 16, 2008 @11:03PM (#23099594)
    Just to give some idea of the scale, this is more than twice the rate at which the human male thinks about sex [snopes.com].

    I didn't think it was possible.

    • by EdIII (1114411) *

      I didn't think it was possible.

      Don't be silly! Of course it's not actually possible. You see the sex "thought process" is actually a continuously running background process with at least one dedicated processor at all times. The size and strength of that processor varies of course, but is nonetheless always active. Furthermore, the rate at which some people are measuring this process is incorrect, as they only measure when it gains control over the active "window", which is about once every few seconds.

  • by damn_registrars (1103043) <damn.registrars@gmail.com> on Wednesday April 16, 2008 @11:15PM (#23099672) Homepage Journal
    I know that my email (especially in my older accounts) certainly matches the rate of spam in excess of 90% by volume.

    And the part about a new spam site created every 3 seconds shouldn't surprise anyone either. As much as people despise spam, there is still money to be made in it. Thats why people continue to send spam, of course. Thats also why people continue to buy new domain names to sell discount "drugs" and "software".

    This just tells us what many of us already knew. The spam problem will continue to get worse until we actually apply a economic solution to this economic problem.
    • One proposal that's been thrown about is a sort of micro-tax on emails, something like .1 cents per email sent or something. For most people it wouldn't matter, but spammers would get charged massively. The problem is how to actually charge for email. The thing is, we still have junk mail and that actually has a postage fee, so I'm not sure how much a tax on email would help. Of course, users would probably react violently to being charged for email so they could have a CAPTCHA type thing whereby at the end
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Weedlekin (836313)
        "For most people it wouldn't matter, but spammers would get charged massively"

        Except of course for those who use botnets controlled by compromised servers to send spam, which is most of them nowadays.
      • One proposal that's been thrown about is a sort of micro-tax on emails

        Thats a good idea, however if your own experience with spam is similar to mine, it would have almost no meaningful effect. I say this because, at least in my inbox, the vast majority of spam comes from overseas. Even if the spamvertised domains are .com, the domains themselves are registered overseas, and the spam originates from open relays on other continents as well.

        Which of course would make tax collection nearly impossible.

        • Yeah, that's why I didn't claim the idea as my own, and mentioned how impossible it would be to actually make this system work. It's just an interesting idea I've heard.
    • by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Thursday April 17, 2008 @12:39AM (#23100274)

      This just tells us what many of us already knew. The spam problem will continue to get worse until we actually apply a economic solution to this economic problem.
      Yes, in theory.

      The reality is that a single sale of "herbal \/1agr4" can mean a profit for the spammer. The cost of spamming is that low for them.

      In order to make it economically unsound for the spammers, you'd have to make it economically annoying for the rest of humanity. More annoying than simply putting up with the spam.

      UNLESS we get rid of the stupid CAN-SPAM law and allow each state to institute its own anti-spam laws and allow citizens in those states to sue the spammers for violating those laws.

      Yeah, this will hurt "legitimate" fucking "email marketing" companies ... but in my experience those do not exist. Any legitimate company would view the 50 different legal requirements as a cost of doing business. The same as it is with insurance companies.
      • by kvezach (1199717)
        In order to make it economically unsound for the spammers, you'd have to make it economically annoying for the rest of humanity. More annoying than simply putting up with the spam.

        Not necessarily. If you have a trust network or database telling you which sources are more likely to spam (like RBL but with degrees instead of "either you're a spammer or you're not"), mail servers could demand more of sources that are likely to spam. Just connect this thing to another network of cryptographic time stamp serv
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by swillden (191260)

        The reality is that a single sale of "herbal \/1agr4" can mean a profit for the spammer. The cost of spamming is that low for them.

        No, the reality is that spammers don't care if the product they're pumping sells at all. Spammers sell spam, it's the fool that's buying the spam that wants to sell "herbal \/1agr4". Sure, spammers would like it if someone would buy the stuff, but when the current fool finally realizes he's not making any money there's always another sucker with a get rich quick scheme and a little cash to buy the spammer's services.

      • In order to make it economically unsound for the spammers, you'd have to make it economically annoying for the rest of humanity. More annoying than simply putting up with the spam.

        UNLESS we get rid of the stupid CAN-SPAM law and allow each state to institute its own anti-spam laws and allow citizens in those states to sue the spammers for violating those laws.

        I think that depends on how one uses the internet. From my own experience, I can say that a good portion of spam is propagated because of complacent registrars and their lax policies towards spam. Spamvertised domains are usually shut down fairly quickly by ISPs, however, new domains are sold at a bewildering rate. As soon as a spammer loses one domain he just opens a website on the next and the global game of whack-a-mole continues.

        I say therefore that we could reduce spam dramatically by coming d

  • ASSP is the answer (Score:4, Informative)

    by Lershac (240419) on Wednesday April 16, 2008 @11:20PM (#23099700) Homepage
    ASSP

    30 minutes to install on an exchange server... filters out all the spam.

    I run it on all my clients, and they average about 95% of all mail intercepted as spam with a zero false positive rate.
    http://assp.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
    • ASSP (Score:3, Funny)

      by game kid (805301)
      Sorry, I don't trust a product that evokes "ass pee" with spam protection. :P
      • by lottameez (816335)
        If you provide us with your email address, I can send you and 5,000,000 of your closest friends an offer for an AMAZING new drug that will cure "ass-pee".
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Technician (215283)
      30 minutes to install on an exchange server... filters out all the spam.

      I too can install a filter that filters out all the spam.. Send it to dev null. A good filter should have a low false positive rate along with removing most spam. Many filters that remove most (or all) spam also have a high false positive rate.

      My ISP seems to lose about 50% of my business mail. Some comes marked spam and some doesn't even arrive.. Either that or my requests for quotes are ignored by my vendors.

      I've been trying to ge
      • #1. Any mail accepted MUST be delivered.

        #2. Any mail rejected MUST be rejected at SMTP time and include the phone number of the email admin of the rejecting server.

        That's how I do it. If my machines are rejecting your messages, your server is getting my phone number along with the 5xx error message. Exim4 rocks.

        If your server does not deliver that rejection notice to you, that's the fault of your email admin.

        I've pretty much cut spam out completely at the company I work for. The only problem is the rather l
        • If your server does not deliver that rejection notice to you, that's the fault of your email admin.

          Or the fault of anybody who's backbone it transverses. Many ISP's bulk filter to reduce the traffic that transverses the network. A spam blast of image spam and the following bounce traffic followed by the bounces of bounces can be eliminated by simply dropping high probability spam traffic. This includes most of my request for product bids and requested offers. SPAM from compromised home users make it thr
        • If your server does not deliver that rejection notice to you, that's the fault of your email admin.

          It might not be my request to a manufacture that was rejected. It may have been the reply, and the manufacture would have recieved the bounce..

          How long have you been an email admin? A common way for a long way to pass filters was simply bounce spam off a mailserver with forged headers. This used to deliver all the bounced mail messages with your spam right on to your spam reciepient list. Don't tell me you
      • by v1 (525388)
        Funny this topic should come up today. I run my own mailserver, and subscribe to a small set of the "safe" RBL filters. My mom emailed me yesterday complaining that she was not receiving mail from one person, and it turned out to be someone from the UAE, whose entire ISP had been blacklisted. I thought that was a bit extreme until I looked and saw that his ISP had over 2,700 active bulk spammers using it. (made it to UCEProtect's level 3 list) Ouch. She wanted me to unblock that. Um, no. I told her t
    • by EdIII (1114411) *
      First off, I don't understand if the article is talking about emails actually accepted by email servers and delivered to accounts, or just SMTP connections (terminated or successful).

      I don't know about ASSP, but I use third party solutions for my servers as well. Your not the only one that seems to have a handle on it.

      I get perhaps 8% of all inbound email messages labeled as SPAM and STILL placed into the Junk Mail folders. I don't have a zero false positive rate though, but it is very low. Less then 10
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by gujo-odori (473191)
      You're proud of 95% efficacy? I work for one of the well-known anti-spam companies, and if our efficacy *fell* to 95% that would be considered an emergency. Our overall efficacy is >99% and the spam categories I manage are closing in on five nines.
  • by martin-boundary (547041) on Wednesday April 16, 2008 @11:21PM (#23099720)
    Phrases such as "Turkey's contribution to spam" are highly misleading. Turkey doesn't actually contribute significantly to spam. How many Turkish language spam messages have you got recently in your mailbox? How many spam messages advertizing a Turkish company's products? None? Then Turkey's contribution to spam is negligible.

    What everyone gets in their mailbox are mainly American spam messages intended mainly for Americans, sent via hijacked Windows computers around the world. There's also a significant fraction of messages intended for a handful of other rich countries, but the only third world country seriously contributing their own spam is probably Nigeria.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by seyyah (986027)

      Phrases such as "Turkey's contribution to spam" are highly misleading. Turkey doesn't actually contribute significantly to spam. How many Turkish language spam messages have you got recently in your mailbox? How many spam messages advertizing a Turkish company's products? None? Then Turkey's contribution to spam is negligible.

      I disagree. There needs to be a means of getting all these Turks to get their computers infected. I can tell you that there are many many web-sites targeting Turkish internet users for all sorts of attacks. Plus, downloading music using clients saturated with spyware is common and I'd be shocked if many of these were not also trojans.

      So, yeah I think Turkey is totally contributing to the spam problem.

    • What everyone gets in their mailbox are mainly American spam messages intended mainly for Americans,

      Actually, in the past year or so I've noticed a trend in my spam toward the CJK section of Unicode... all that newfound Chinese buying power is searching for an outlet.

    • "Turkey's contribution to spam" suggests that either Turkish ISPs are spammer friendly or PCs in Turkey are easy to hack into and send spam from (e.g. because it's uncommon for users to run security software or apply updates).

      From this you can draw conclusions like anti-virus and firewall software is too expensive for home users in Turkey, and decide how best to fix the problem.
    • How many Turkish language spam messages have you got recently in your mailbox?
      Now that you mention it, it's gone from zero to about 5-10 per day over the last 6 weeks or so. I've been wondering how these are managing to slip through the company's spam filters (which are normally pretty good) as well as my own Baynesian filtering, which seems for some odd reason not to be very trainable when it comes to these.
  • by gmuslera (3436) on Wednesday April 16, 2008 @11:22PM (#23099722) Homepage Journal
    Tnat a country have more or less computers that send spam could be related the amount of new people with internet connection there, specially if there is no big culture around security.

    But the 1st number, the amount new web pages related to spam, needs to be explained a bit more. The original Sophos report [sophos.com] at least explain that are the related to the web links included with the mails, but not sure if that implies more spam realted domains, more spam related servers or if the big numbers are more related to different ways to write urls in the same servers,

  • One day... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Fluffeh (1273756)
    First it was their entry into Eurovision, now they are getting up there in the Spam stakes... what next Turkey? What next?
  • "Turkey's appearance in the top three makes for an interesting realignment so early in the year," said Carole Theriault, senior security consultant at Sophos.

    "But this does not mean that other countries can give up the fight."

    That's right, it's still early in the year, no one is down and out quite yet. Plenty of chances for any up-and-comer to catch up and make an appearance on the leaderboard - who knows what the second quarter may hold!
  • by jddj (1085169) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @12:43AM (#23100306) Journal
    Turkish Spam KISS YOU! IT KISS YOU!!! It loving sex with all the womens of the world!
  • Why (Score:3, Funny)

    by rawg (23000) <phill&kenoyer,com> on Thursday April 17, 2008 @01:24AM (#23100566) Homepage
    I just don't understand why this can't be fixed. Why does ISP's let this happen? Why do people let this happen?

    This is just so utterly ridiculous to me that it actually makes me sick to think about it. The shear amount of waste being dealt is just insane. And it's not just Email, it's regular postal mail too. The US Mail System is so clogged up with junk that it amazes me that my paycheck gets to me each month. Every single day my mail box is full of, basically, junk that goes straight into the fire.
    • by prockcore (543967)

      Why does ISP's let this happen?

      Stubborn sysadmins. Think about how much spam would be eliminated if you forced the from address to be the same server that was actually delivering the email.

      If my email address is bob@example.com, the only machine that should be allowed to send mail proclaiming to be from example.com is example.com.

      But noooo.. sysadmins demand the ability to forge the from address. It's a *feature*.

      Email is broken by design.

      • by Stellian (673475)

        If my email address is bob@example.com, the only machine that should be allowed to send mail proclaiming to be from example.com is example.com
        Never heard of mailing lists have you ?
  • by zymano (581466) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @02:04AM (#23100794)
    Find IP and shut it down.

    This is the problem with decentralized control.

    Isp's are part to blame.
  • What is this "spam"? :P

    I mean, sure, I get a few per week in my Inbox, but that's hardly the problem it used to be with my former accounts. I've stopped using those and forward them to the Gmail account now.
  • Come on guys, you're being lazy! I haven't seen one decent "perfect" solution to spam attached to this story yet!

    My own solution still stands - The parasite will eventually destroy the host at which point "huge investment to existing SMTP infra" becomes dodgy enough that it will be replaced by something else.

    Hard to see how you can stop zombie-nets, thought. Even if you had some super-duper cryptographic challenge system in place, spammers can throw 100k botnet at that which can do whatever the legitimate u
  • by ocbwilg (259828) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @07:01AM (#23102048)
    First, let me say that I hate spam. I understand that in most cases it's annoying. I also understand that in most cases it's sent via illegal access to unwitting people's computers, and that there is no doubt a real cost associated with the amount of bandwidth that it consumes. I understand that in most cases the products that it advertises are scams.

    But I have to wonder, how does that statistic that 92.3% of all email sent is spam relate to the rate of junk mail sent via snail mail? I don't know about you, but I'd say that 90% or more of the mail that comes to my home is junk mail, so I'm not sure that the spam statistic is all that surprising. This may just be the expected signal/noise ratio.
    • by v1 (525388)
      I think that would depend on how much regular mail you receive. I receive very little postal mail. My bills are all on auto or electronic payment, so once a month I receive a receipt from my phone, insurance, and power, plus a direct deposit receipt from work. Those are the only regular postal mails I receive. I only receive junk mail about one every three days, which is not intolerable, which may make it look like a poor s/n ratio if you're just running numbers.

      On the other hand, I know there are peopl
  • Tarpits (Score:3, Informative)

    by Brian Kendig (1959) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @08:53AM (#23102858) Homepage
    Is anyone out there running a tarpit [wikipedia.org]?

    I have the ability to turn my mail server into a tarpit, but it won't do much good unless there are a lot of other tarpits out there too.

  • by sootman (158191) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @09:10AM (#23103064) Homepage Journal
    ...at least as far as compromised computers are concerned. Bill Gates claimed in 2004 that spam would be solved by 2006. [google.com] He could go a long way towards making that happen by offering XP SP2 (upgrade) free to anyone who wants it, that would work on any computer running Win95 or newer, legal/legit or not. Sure, he's officially retired, but I bet people in Redmond still listen to him. Hell, he's got enough money, he could literally buy every single copy needed and M$ wouldn't even lose a penny. (Except for lost Vista sales.)

Cobol programmers are down in the dumps.

Working...