U.S. World's Foremost Spam Nation In 2004 274
der Kopf writes "As reported by ZDNet, '42 percent of all spam sent this year came from the United States,' which makes the U.S. the unthreatened king of the 2004 spam hill. Number two on the list is South Korea (with 13.43%), while China can be found in third place (with 8.44%). The U.S. put out more spam this year than all the other countries in the top 12 combined." All depends who's counting, I guess.
Woohoo! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Woohoo! (Score:5, Funny)
Where's that? The enl@rjd p3njs?
Re:Woohoo! (Score:2)
Wrong: China is Still # (Score:2, Informative)
In other words, the USA has more computers than China. Once China reaches a higher level of prosperity, with the same number of computer desktops possessed by the USA, then China will easily exceed the spam level generated by the USA.
Re:Wrong: China is Still # (Score:3, Informative)
The ratio varies from 30/70 to 20/80, with the majority percentage coming from foreign (to the U.S.) IP addresses.
In other words, anecdotal evidence indicates most SPAM comes from countries *other* than the U.S.
Re:Wrong: China is Still # (Score:2)
Thanks!
Re:Wrong: China is Still # (Score:2)
At the server, using iMail filters (if HEADER CONTAINS [nnn.nnn. send to FOLDER)
Locally, SpamBully does the same thing at the receiving computer plus Bayseian filters everything else (which is how I trap "domestic" SPAM).
Re:Wrong: China is Still # (Score:5, Informative)
The majority of U.S.-sourced SPAM I receive comes from the following ISPs:
Comcast
Road Runner
EarthLink
Pacbell
Ameritech
In that order.
Re:Wrong: China is Still # (Score:2)
Re:Wrong: China is Still # (Score:2)
Re:Wrong: China is Still # (Score:4, Interesting)
I hear all kinds of noise about how to deal with spam from the standpoint of broadband users running as unwitting spam relays. Everything from "make it the ISPs responsibility" to "require users to get training and get a license in order to get online". What is the real solution? I don't know, but anything that requires passing a Federal law will probably cause more harm than good. Doesn't mean they won't try to pass one, though.
Personally, I liken people that run unprotected, unpatched machines as being "bad neighbors". You know the kind: the one that lets his dog run free and crap all over your yard. Yes, I realize that most of these zombied systems are in that situation because of the ignorance of their owners. But if that neighbor started building a garage extension on your side of the property line, you wouldn't let him off the hook because he couldn't read a survey.
People don't really think of security as being a social issue as well as a personal one. I believe that most people want to be good neighbors, and would take steps if you reported their dog taking a dump on your property. But there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of zombies out there whose owners have no idea that their systems are crapping in everyone's back yard. Somehow, we need to close the loop on these people so they a. know that they've been taken over and b. give them easy, effective steps to take care of the problem. Tall order, I know. Comcast is heading in the right direction with their policy, but they need to let people know when they've been disabled, and why. Maybe they are now, I don't know.
Re:Wrong: China is Still # (Score:2)
Just think about it: you usually get spam in english trying to sell something to english-speaking audience. It's not someone like random guy in China. It's US-based "marketers".
Re:Wrong: China is Still # (Score:2)
Re:Wrong: China is Still # (Score:2)
Re:Wrong: China is Still # (Score:2, Insightful)
Korean/'insert country name here' send spam - yes
Now in the case of Robert Solaway (as seen on spamhaus) I find he uses borked windoze boxes worldwide to send his junk (he also hosts in China - well thats what the dns reports)
Murky stuff this.
Re:Wrong: China is Still # (Score:2)
Re:Wrong: China is Still # (Score:2)
Slashdot is always raving about how SP2 does or doesn't protect against this or that... irrelevant. The number of people who call up wanting help configuring 98 and ME for DSL is astounding. None have ever heard of linux, mozilla, adaware. The exceptions tend to loathe the mentioning of such
Re:Wrong: China is Still # (Score:2)
I burned out about 3 years into it. My fourth year, I got a 'promotion' into E-Support (email support). Each email, from then on, started with "I'm sorry" then I read their message - honest to god truth. Oddly enough, I was the admin of the email box (Kana) and management wouldn't let me put that into the startup response...
I wish
Re:Wrong: China is Still # (Score:2)
Personally, I don't get it. What happened with cars? I don't remember ever reading stories about the 1920s, with 9 out of 10 drivers being wreckless speeding maniacs, who didn't bother to tighten lugnuts, who flew down the road wearing blindfolds. Why do they do this with computers?
Re:Wrong: China is Still # (Score:2)
As for your car analogy, the government stepped in, which is what the 'net community doesn't want. Technically speaking, the government kicked in after saftey became an issue. Heck, the first automobile accident was in 1771, 2 years after it had been created.
Now, until people start getting killed by their computers for stupidity (short of chat room issues0, I don't see things getting much better.
Re:Wrong: China is Still # (Score:2)
So I think the States - which has the largest pool of public IP addresses - will always come out ahead in this one.
Re:Woohoo! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Woohoo! (Score:2, Insightful)
This would be a good thing if it's accurate, that would mean that close to half of all spam would be under US jurisdiction, which means they can be sued and shut down in the US./p?
It is true. Americans generate the problem to sell products to solve the problem.
The legal system in the US is not interested in enforcing SEC regulations, fraud laws or business licensing issues with regards to spam. You can't put 80% of the business in court for being spammers. The company you work for might be a spamme
Re:Woohoo! (Score:3, Insightful)
i.e. the backhanders that senators and wotnot get from 'advertising' businesses mean that the laws have little or no teeth.
I mean, in the US, it's pretty much legal to say just about anything in an advertisements. In the UK, you have to be actually not misleading.
Yay! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yay! (Score:2, Funny)
Headlines we'll see in 2005, 2006, .. (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure it will (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sure it will (Score:2)
Re:Sure it will (Score:2)
Re:Sure it will (Score:2)
Who's counting? (Score:3, Insightful)
This study comes from the UK; given recent electoral history, I'm far more inclined to trust that they can count than I am to trust any study which comes out of the US.
Re:Who's counting? (Score:5, Insightful)
What the fuck was that editorialil comment supposed to mean anyway?
Every time spam comes up as a topic here we get dozens of xenophobic rednecks proudly explaining that since they've "blocked all APNIC" they "don't get any spam, and who cares about communicating with them anyway". Even in the face of data like this, I'm sure they'll continue to lecture the rest of the world on how thay have to shut down "their" spammers or be cut off.
Personally, living in Hong Kong, about 1% of my spam is local, 2-5% Nigerian, the rest American.
Re:Who's counting? (Score:2)
Seems that 'harvesting' e-mail addresses from web forums and mailing lists is a merkin habit. Some throw-away mail addys I have used recently for this, is only getting merkin spam.
Got to hand it to you merkins though, you seem to have the filthiest women in the world, all them housewives
Re:Who's counting? (Score:2)
It means it depends on how, when and what methods you use to gather your evidence. If I assumed all spam written and sent in English was originated from the U.S., then yeah the U.S. is the biggest spammer. But if you wanna get deep and complex you can look at when certain spam flows originate (last February I got a bunch of spam for the Chinese New Year and I doubt most U.S. spammers would know let alone target that). Or you look at where t
Re:Who's counting? (Score:2)
Actually, no. Most spam is, according to what I've read recently, sent from zombie PCs, in the US mostly. China does come up as a home for the websites processing sales to those idiots who respond to spam.
And "APNIC" is an absurdly large area of the world -- including notably Asutralia and New Zealand. I wouldn't mind so much if people actually blacklisted the ISPs who do have something to do with spa
Re:Who's counting? (Score:2)
Err, yeah, sorry about that -- free speech is a terrible, terrible thing. But don't worry -- we're workin' really hard at turning ourselves into an authoritarian fundamentalist/multinational state, so if you check back in a few years, I'm sure you'll be happy to find that lying [*] is totally illegal and everything is happy.
Not sure what
And it's mostly coming from fucking idiots... (Score:5, Interesting)
If Comcast and Verizon spent half as much on cracking down on their moron customers as they do on mailers begging me to use their Internet services, they'd have this problem under control in no time.
Re:And it's mostly coming from fucking idiots... (Score:2)
Re:And it's mostly coming from fucking idiots... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And it's mostly coming from fucking idiots... (Score:3, Interesting)
I complained again, and they didn't do anything. I really can't imagine the computer on the other end is at all usable, because it's so busy trying to send spam.
Simple solution (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Simple solution (Score:2)
Even for my personal e-mail, I could whitelist my USA-based friends, and add a high spam score to anything else coming from USA ISPs... very
Good news in disguise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, now we have to wait for Congress to actually do something about it.
Re:Good news in disguise? (Score:2)
Please explain how you expect people stealing other people's computers to send their spam to suddenly care about the law.
Re:Good news in disguise? (Score:2)
Re:Good news in disguise? (Score:2)
It'll only push spammers underground.
Re:Good news in disguise? (Score:2)
Re:Good news in disguise? (Score:2)
A better solution might be fines sufficient to pay for their prosecution and probation with the condition that they not live in a household with a networked computer until they (at their expense) complete a network security adult-education class offered by a local community college or some such. Assuming that their machine being compromised was something that was easilly preventable and they failed - through ign
It's funny cuz (Score:5, Funny)
I guess we CAN-SPAM and we're mighty proud of it...
Re:It's funny cuz (Score:2)
Wonderful news... (Score:5, Funny)
*sniff* I've never been so proud of my country.
Obviously (Score:2, Informative)
It should be 100%! (Score:2, Funny)
A better question... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:A better question... (Score:2)
Re:A better question... (Score:2)
But if you want to stop all the abuses of mail relays, you should monitor your mail server constantly. And it is not something ISP admins are paid for.
Blocking port 25 (Score:2)
A little out-reach education on how to avoid and detect being owned wouldn't be a bad idea either.
Re:A better question... (Score:2)
You don't need to send mail through a relay. Just take your domain, look up the MX record, and send directly to the recipient's SMTP server. An extremely minimal SMTP implementation could probably be done in 20 lines of code or less, making it well within reach of worm/virus writers. Who cares about error checking if 95% of the messages
Re:A better question... (Score:2)
Re:A better question... (Score:2)
The problem is the ISPs who allow all their DSL/cable clients to do direct-to-MX mailing. A large secondary cause is all the ISPs who do spam filtering but who DO NOT assign a +100 SpamAssassin score to any mail that originates directly from a dynamic IP pool. Fix those two problems and zombie spam drops to nearly nil.
p
Re:A better question... (Score:2)
I don't give a hoot about which country spam is sent from - it's the companies contracting spammers for their services in the first place that should feel t
It all depends on who's counting (Score:2)
Inspiration (Score:4, Funny)
They must have gotten their inspiration from military spending.
Fucking spammers!
Re:Inspiration (Score:2)
flawed data (Score:3, Informative)
Re:flawed data (Score:3, Informative)
Here's the standard spam-solution form (Score:2, Funny)
In anticipation of yet another wave of proposed solutions, I have attached the standard spam-solution form for your convenience:
----------
Your post advocates a
( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work.
Here is why it won't work:
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless again
Spamvertised web sites in China (Score:5, Interesting)
My understanding is that if you could close down the spamvertised sites, spam would largely be restricted to phishing attacks. If I didn't believe this, I probably wouldn't bother using spamcop!
Yes, but... (Score:2)
Re:Yes, but... (Score:2)
Yeah, I agree - but that was sort of my point. It doesn't matter from where the spammer is sending the mails, it matters where the spammer gets his revenue from. Who cares if spam is coming from compromised zombies in the US? If you want to stop spam it is very Quixotic to go after the source; you need to go after the complicit server companies that are hosting the spammers' websites.
Re:Spamvertised web sites in China (Score:4, Interesting)
Not for long I suspect, I do quite a bit of statistical analysis of spam and there are definitely changes in progress. Over the two years or so, there has a swing from using open relays and "bullet proof" hosted servers to actually send the spam to using compromised boxes on broadband connections. This is reflected in the report; a move from IPs in China to those in DSL pools countries with sizable adoption of broadband connectivity.
The actual sites being spamvertised however have remained solidly in the traditional havens where ISPs with questionable anti-spam policies can be found. However, over the last few months in particular I have seen steadily growing numbers of spamvertised sites that are also being hosted in DSL pools, undoubtably on compromised boxes. From a spammer's perspective this is a no-brainer (no more hosting fees) so it's fairly obvious that this trend will continue I think.
There are both good and bad points to this. The bad is that it makes traditional SpamCop style IP reporting almost unworkable - there are so many unpatched boxes that an ISP has no chance at dealing with them all. It was a game of Whack-a-Mole to start with, only now the number of holes that the moles can pop up from has gone up by a few orders of magnitude. The good however is that DNSBLs of the actual domains being used instead of the IPs, such as the SURBL lists, that can be generated from SpamCop submissions are *incredibly* good indicators of spam - so keep up that SpamCop reporting!
More contentious though, is how ISPs might respond to this new spammer tactic. The simplest solution is probably going to be further restrictions on what an IP on a broadband connection can and cannot do. I expect to see more DSL services that are blocked prevented from running servers on certain ports, forced to send email through the ISP's gateway server, and possibly even outright firewalling of certain "remote access" ports like NetBIOS, RPC and so on.
Frankly, given the rising tide of spam, ever increasing port scans bouncing off my firewall and almost total apathy of J.Sixpack in keeping his/her PC patched, I'm getting more fond of this idea every day. What I'd like to see is ISPs offering "standard" DSL packages with the kind of restrictions I mentioned above stated up front, alongside an unrestricted "premium" package - it could even cost a little extra. Alternatively, there is the middleground approach that my ISP uses: you can't run an email server by default, but send tech support and email and they'll unblock port 25 for free and periodically check that you are not running an open relay.
One thing's for sure, if/when ISPs do respond to this latest spammer tactic, the spammers simply move the goalposts yet again. :(
Re:Spamvertised web sites in China (Score:2)
Phishing is when a spammer sends out a very specificly targeted email to a whole bunch of people, hoping that the email will apply to certain people on the list. Those people may then take the "bait". Usually the scammer is looking for things like bank account information or a login name for a web site.
For instance, you might one day receive an email from CitiBank saying, "Your account is expired due to a security threat! Please click here to log on and verify you
Dumb Question (Score:2)
Treat Spam like other pollution (Score:2)
In other forms of pollution, a common resource is used for private gain because it is not correctly priced. For example, air pollution comes from a factory being able to dump its waste into the atmosphere for no cost.
The solution to pollution is first decrease it and then ending it by makin
And people say America produces nothing. (Score:2)
Right! (Score:4, Informative)
Most European countries have tough anti-spam laws. I get practically no spams that come from Europe or specifically target Europeans. The last Spam I got in German was from some dumbass dot-com newbie who had bought a CD-ROM full of "guaranteed legal e-mail addresses" from some US scammer.
The problem with spam is a problem with the USA.
Fix it.
Now.
Makes sense... (Score:5, Funny)
Ahh the Irony of Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Now an article with research backing it shows the US as the major culprit, and what does everyone do? Make excuses or jokes. What makes you think the Chinese don't have zombie machines? Or is it ok for the US to spam, but no one else?
And the fact of the matter is, aside from a few random Russian/Chinese emails (1 in 100), most of the spam I receive is offering goods and services in English, directed at the North American market. 'Where' the spam comes from doesn't really matter, what the spam is selling and where that thing is should.
Well here's the thing (Score:2)
If you e-mail our abuse line, we take it seriously. We see who has the IP, and check to see if the system is sending spam. If it is, it gets removed from the network until it has been cleaned. Even if not, we'll still give you an e-mai
Targets, too (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, porn sites are international, but mortgage refinancing and what else the other crap is seems totally US-centric to me.
I'm sure 95% of the idiots who buy from spammers can be found in the US, too.
Who is the real badguy? (Score:4, Interesting)
One of my friends, who work for a US based company, which sells cigarretes online. All this guy has to do is get some working email ids and send the mail drafted by the US based company. He does this from location outside US though. This guy has written a UserAgent (Robot) which goes to Yahoo and grabs the email ids at random and mails them. Untill this it looks very bad but if you see inside they do get enough business through this channel for their survival at least. They do not have any other business channel other than this and they are doing fine.
Even if this guy is generating the SPAM from the location outside US, he is doing it for his master sitting there in US.
Now, who is the real badguy?
Re:Who is the real badguy? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Who is the real badguy? (Score:2)
Your buddy.
And you for still being friends with such a lowlife creep.
If he has any morals at all, he'll tell his boss exactly how far up his own ass the boss's head is, and then he'll leave the company.
Until he does, don't try and play the self-righteous "I just do this to pay the bills" bullshit here.
p
Re:Who is the real badguy? (Score:2)
If you're hired to find holes in software, and then you find out your employer is using those holes to write new viruses, or steal people's identities, and you keep on working because "it's a paycheck," you're just as much scum as your boss is.
This is no different. Knowingly working for scum makes you scum too.
p
Not surprising. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, right...
If I were counting, that would be more like 99% than 42%, sadly.
More precisely, I'd say that 42% of the spam being relayed from computers in the US sounds about right. But when it comes to the target audience, or the companies/individuals behind the spamvertised goods/services/scams, it suddenly looks like a 99% american problem in my (and most people's) view.
I had already commented on this [slashdot.org]
Sad, but certainly not Slashdot headline-worthy.
ban mail (Score:2)
U.S. head start on 2005 begins today (Score:5, Interesting)
All the people who came downstairs this year to find a shiny new Dell or Gateway under the tree should be getting their machines owned by spammers right about..... now. So prepare for another post-Christmas onslaught as the spammers play with all their newly-acquired toys.
~Philly
The Frozen North (Score:2)
As a Canadian, I am appalled, disappointed and throwing up by this biased and US-centric study that failed to consider our spamming abilities. Shame on them for failing to include us.
Re:Finally. A chance to whore some karma! (Score:3, Funny)
Gee, poor guys, if someone threatened me of broadband penetration, I guess I'd send out unsolicited email too...
Let me guess... (Score:3, Funny)
(Merry Christmas!)
Re:The undisputed kings of bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
Though I don't think hitting the corporations financially as punishment really works. Large corporations will typically build in potential losses from economic punishments for misdeeds into their business model. A company may knowingly release a product they know to be unsafe, and simply put a portion of their profits aside for paying out of court settlements to victims.
In essense, this is akin to saying that it's alright for me to go around killing people without fear of jail if I can afford to pay the victim's families a large portion of money.
What I'd like to see is criminal charges brought on descision makers in corporations who knowingly use unsafe methods to produce a product that they know to be dangerous. In other words, a manager who makes the decision to save $0.02 on each product produced by using a less safe part won't be hedging those cost savings against the potential court costs from the families his company's product kills, he'll be hedging it against the very real possibility that he himself may face prison time for multiple murder charges.
We cannot give large corporations exemption from responsibility on a human level. We see corporations as faceless entities, but there are always human beings behind the scenes making decisions on how that corporation acts. If we start making those humans accountable for the actions of the company for whom they make decisions, I think we'd start seeing quite a bit more safety, envrionmental and social responsibility in the corporate world.
Re:The undisputed kings of bullshit (Score:2)
Though I don't think hitting the corporations financially as punishment really works.
-- Michael Fraase, When Elephants Dance.
Note that this has nothing to do with capitalism, but
Re:The undisputed kings of bullshit (Score:2)
I am starting to think that what we have created is institutionalized sociopathy; we now have entities with rights, with free will, with a desire for self-preservation, but with no conscience or empathy, only an awareness of penalties. They are proud of the fact that their only obligation is to the bottom line, they consider comp
Depends.. (Score:2)
Personally, I'd go with the second one.
Re:Not surprised.. (Score:2)
Listen, asshole... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Where it comes from, isn't always who its from. (Score:2)
I had a quick look at Spamhaus [spamhaus.org]. You have a pretty screwed notion of "many" if you say that 77.5% (141 out of 182 entries in the ROKSO list) is "not many".
Sebastian
Re:Where it comes from, isn't always who its from. (Score:2)
If the US government outlawed the users of spam campaigns then a large part of the volume would be eliminated.
Re:Where it comes from, isn't always who its from. (Score:2)