Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Security Spam

Spam Hits 95% of All Email 270

An anonymous reader writes "Commtouch released its Email Threats Trend Report based on the automated analysis of billions of email messages weekly. The report examines the appearance of new kinds of attachment spamsuch as PDF spam and Excel spam together with the decline of image spam, as well as the growing threat of innocent appearing spam containing links to malicious web sites. Image spam declined to a level of less than 5% of all spam, down from 30% in the first quarter of 2007; also, image pump-and-dump spam has all but disappeared, with pornographic images taking its place."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spam Hits 95% of All Email

Comments Filter:
  • Summary only link (Score:5, Informative)

    by Lord Grey ( 463613 ) * on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @08:47AM (#21008909)
    The link referenced in the posting goes to a summary page that is a little light on details. At the bottom of that page is a link to the PDF-formatted report [commtouch.com]. There's a lot more information there, including some screenshots of example SPAM and malware sites, trends in attack vectors, zombie systems, etc.. Interesting stuff.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Considering this is the land of the goatse posts and I've never heard of commtech before, how do I know this isn't a virus PDF?
      • by mikael ( 484 )
        Isn't there a proxy server somewhere that could convert PDF back to the equivalent HTML?
        • by hodet ( 620484 )
          or just search the link in google and use the View As HTML option if it really worries you.
    • There's a lot more information there, including some screenshots of example SPAM and malware sites, trends in attack vectors, zombie systems, etc.. Interesting stuff.

      Indeed, though as a mutt user, I feel left out.

      Seriously, though, I had no idea spam could be so colourful and attractive looking. All I get is random ascii. If I'm lucky, I may see something like (altered to protect the click-happy) the following:

      You can pick up your postcard at the following web address:

  • by danaris ( 525051 ) <danaris@nosPAM.mac.com> on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @08:53AM (#21008977) Homepage

    ...also, image pump-and-dump spam has all but disappeared, with pornographic images taking its place.

    Huh? Where? Man, all I ever get are stupid Viagra spam and "O3M S0FTWARE!" (and variants thereupon).

    Humpfh. Everyone gets pr0n spam but me.

    Dan Aris

  • SPAM @ 95%?! (Score:5, Informative)

    by thatskinnyguy ( 1129515 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @08:54AM (#21008991)
    Thank God for Gmail and its excellent spam filtering! I don't think I've had any spam hit my inbox in 2 years. :-)
    • by rvw ( 755107 )
      I haven't had many, but I do get an occasional spam mail in my Gmail inbox.
    • by blindcoder ( 606653 ) <slashdot@wegwerf.anderdonau.de> on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @09:23AM (#21009297) Homepage
      That's because they read every mail before it hits your inbox.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Nimey ( 114278 )
      Gmail's spam filters have definitely improved. When I first got my account (in '03?) I foolishly posted something to Usenet via DejaGoogle (required my @gmail.com account) and the spam just started rolling in. I still get lots of spam, but almost all of it is properly routed to the spam folder, and thanks to the CustomizeGoogle extension, I don't even see the spam count.
      • by Thaelon ( 250687 )
        I had the same problem.

        Thanks Google, for not letting me obfuscate or otherwise modify my email when posting directly from Gmail!

        Luckily the spam filtering is excellent and I've only seen one spam in my in box in months.
    • Re:SPAM @ 95%?! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jfengel ( 409917 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @10:33AM (#21010193) Homepage Journal
      They're good, but they're not that good for me. I get several spams a day in my inbox (and thousands a day filtered out).

      Bizarrely, they should be easy to identify. Most of them are in Russian. Whatever bayesian network they're doing should have figured out by now that I don't read Russian.

      The other one is the same template, over and over, all beginning with the same phrase. I have no idea why that one keeps getting through.

      I'm sure not complaining; they're clearly filtering out a huge amount of sheer misery.
    • You know the G in Gmail is for Google and not God, right? You're thanking the wrong party!

      I occasionally get spam in my Gmail inboxes - especially when it's written in other languages. Thunderbird filters those out, thankfully.
  • by petes_PoV ( 912422 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @08:55AM (#21008995)
    ... here's a report from a company that specialises in anti-virus and other security products.

    While I'm not denying spam etc. is an annoyance and does cause a lot of people some problems, do we really want to accept at face value some words from an organisation that could well have a vested interest in making the problem appear more threatening than it really is?

    Personally I'd prefer to teach people how to avoid spam/virus infection - in the same way we teach people how to avoid clinical infection, than to go around wailing about how bad the problem is.

    • "in the same way we teach people how to avoid clinical infection", you mean, with little to no succes?
    • by gammygator ( 820041 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @09:10AM (#21009163)
      FWIW, about 90% of our e-mail has been spam... and we've seen a solid 50% increase in traffic over the past quarter. The numbers aren't that out of whack. quote: Personally I'd prefer to teach people how to avoid spam/virus infection... Good luck with that. Particularly with the avoiding spam part. If you come up with a foolproof method that actually involves using e-mail... I'm sure you'll be a lot richer than I am.
      • Good luck with that. Particularly with the avoiding spam part. If you come up with a foolproof method that actually involves using e-mail... I'm sure you'll be a lot richer than I am.

        I have a modest proposal: Hitmen. And Hitwomen. It's simple enough. Everybody using email who are frustrated with spam donates a buck or so a year. The millions of dollars are used to hire teams of investigators who track down those sending spam, then you hire somebody to dispose of them.

        This includes programmers that writ
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Belacgod ( 1103921 )
          As what happened with e-solutions, the Russian mobsters in charge of spam will simply hire better hitmen and eliminate the ones you send, until no one will take the contracts you offer anymore.
    • by SaDan ( 81097 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @09:13AM (#21009193) Homepage
      I work at an ISP and we do SPAM detection and elimination at our border routers. We scan both incoming and outgoing email, and will auto blacklist our own internal IPs if we detect SPAM.

      The highest two-week percentage of rejected incoming email that I've seen broke 97% a few months ago. It's normally between 90% and 95%.

      It's loads of fun dealing with this crap.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by liquidpele ( 663430 )
        Out of curiosity, what do you use for spam detection? What percentage of the email do you actually delete so it never reaches the destination?
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by SaDan ( 81097 )
          FortiNet FortiGate 1000A hardware firewalls, which block 99% of the SPAM we receive (a couple slip through for various reasons), and we run Zimbra with AV/AS scanning enabled.

          The FortiGates are configured to just drop the SPAM, so 100% of SPAM detected by the firewalls never get past the firewalls.
    • Clearly they are not counting the volume of email within companies, but even so, if this number is even within 15% accuracy, we're about 10 years away from abandoning email as a communication medium altogether. Can you imagine any other form of communication that was 95% inefficient?
      • Can you imagine any other form of communication that was 95% inefficient?
        I don't think the 95% figure is very important. What's matters is the balance of power in the arms race between spamming and filtering, i.e. how many spam actually show up in your inbox. Is the average user actually seeing any more spam than 10 years ago? I'm not.
      • by Snocone ( 158524 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @09:48AM (#21009615) Homepage
        Can you imagine any other form of communication that was 95% inefficient?


        Let us pick some text randomly off a googled link and exercise our imagination.

        "First for Emailing - UK's only Emailing Academy

        We are offering you two free e-courses value $45 each. One is our new success emailing communication programme and the other is our popular lifestyle coaching programme

        SUCCESS EMAILING Communication Tips - series of 4 communication tips modules. Designed to get you connecting and interacting more easily and effectively plus monthly success emailing newsletter with tips, quotes and news..."

        When there is a large industry which advertises itself in terms like that instead of the original [flirtzone.com] then perhaps there would be a point to be made that email communications are unusually inefficient. In the meantime, well, sure looks to me like anyone who has ever interacted with the opposite sex should have no problem imagining a form of communication in which 5% efficiency would be a striking -- well nigh unbelievable actually -- increase, and somehow that communication medium has not died out in several millions of years.

        *looks around* Ah .... neee-ver mind.
      • Why pay money when the amount of 'mail recipients' is down to 5% because filters have become so efficient?

        That empties the possible pool of suckers out there so you might as well give up and find some other scam. (Remember, there zipper-heads want to get your money for free. If they can't... Well fuck it...)
    • by CustomDesigned ( 250089 ) <stuart@gathman.org> on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @09:36AM (#21009449) Homepage Journal
      Checking my mail stats, since 4 am this morning, I've received 51985 emails, 51909 of which were filtered as spam. That's 99%. Checking the bandwidth monitor, the spam has consumed a steady 100Kbit/s since 4 am, despite being mostly blocked in SMTP envelope via SPF and reputation (SPF blocks forgeries, reputation blocks spammers with the balls to use their own domain).
      • since 4 am this morning, I've received 51985 emails,

        Geez, are you writing your email address on bathroom walls with a "For a good time email...." next to it? That's an insane amount of emails in such a short time. Wouldn't it be easier to abandon an obviously tainted email address and start fresh with 2 new ones (1 real, 1 decoy/spam depository)?
    • by l0b0 ( 803611 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @09:57AM (#21009727) Homepage
      The statistics for CERN yesterday: 90% rejected, 7% (manually) moved to spam folder, 3% good mails. And that's not even including those that are just deleted without being moved to the spam folder. Scary tendency.
    • by Pontiac ( 135778 )
      So far these numbers are right on for what we see here at my company.
      Last year we were running about 80% spam
      In July 07 we were at 90-92%
      August-07 we reached 95%
      Looking at the numbers this morning we hit 96% for the week.

      Numbers rounded to the thousands
      We run a cluster of 4 Eprism 2000 Appliances for inbound mail
      This week we received 21,490,000 total inbound messages
      We rejected 15,757,000 on RBL and Block lists
      6,591,000 were passed through for spam filtering.
      858,000 were passed as clean.

      We only saw 200 infe
    • by nuzak ( 959558 )
      Symantec specializes in security products too, but their threat report only puts spam at 70% of email. From my own experience, the figure has a lot of variance -- corporate email accounts send a lot more legitimate email around than the average ISP account, and their addresses are less likely to be scraped from public sites, so their overall percentage will be lower (with the exception of role accounts: webmaster@ gets so much spam, it's just a spamtrap where I work)

      And yeah, I'd like to see a lot more emp
  • doubtful (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jsldub ( 133194 )
    I highly doubt that, "All Email"?

    Did they track private networks? Encrypted Email?
    • by Alioth ( 221270 )
      It's certainly high. Looking at my spam filter for the last week, 99% of email sent to me is spam - I'm now getting in excess of 250 spam emails a day, but generally only a couple of legitimate email messages per day. Fortunately, SpamAssassin filters nearly all of it.
    • Hey, I get spam on private networks too. No Mary, I do not want to see this hilarious video of a dog or read about this amazing (fake) story about some family.
  • by psychicsword ( 1036852 ) * <The@noSpAM.psychicsword.com> on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @09:08AM (#21009139)
    All I ever get is spam.

    Most of the subjects are as follows:(filtered for privacy)
    Courses next term
    [Course name here] Grades
    IMPORTANT: Calculus Final Exam Time
    Hello from [Relative name here]
    [Subscribe newsletter here]
    Funny pictures

    Why wont it stop?
    • I know how you feel.. ;-)
      • I have a GMail account I created for my business that started getting spam almost immediately.

        (Some of the spam is REALLY funny [Hello {company name} why is your dick so short {no proper punctuation}]).

        The amazing thing is that I have NEVER given out that address to anyone, at anytime, for any reason.

        NOBODY knows it but the spammers so I claim the best/worst mail/spam ratio: 0% mail/100% spam.
    • Courses next term
      [Course name here] Grades
      IMPORTANT: Calculus Final Exam Time
      I don't know about the others, but as for these, maybe they would diminish somewhat if you went to class on occasion. :)
  • We were at 95% spam back in June. September and October so far are 98%. Meanwhile, November 2006 was 89%.
  • Not new. (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Wasn't "95% of email is spam" reported by the BBC [bbc.co.uk] back in 2006?

    And Security Focus has a great article [securityfocus.com] that shows how all of these numbers are totally made up.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    If the financial incentive is removed the problem should go away. The spammer is not the root cause, the entity hiring the spammer and benefiting from the people responding to the advertisement appears to be the root cause and is easier to identify.

    The entity initiating the process is identifiable ( the contact information must be accurate in order to effect the sale ) unlike the spammer that can utilize many techniques to avoid identification.

    • I say major fines backed up by labor camps if they can't pay. CIA kidnappings and visits to Gitmo for major out of country spammers. Maybe contract with Russia for one of their old siberian prison camps.

      Then again, I might be a tad irrational with my hatred of mass spammers.
  • Any different? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Gorkamecha ( 948294 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @09:38AM (#21009471)
    Is this any different then the stats of the dead tree style of spam that appears in my mailbox every day?
    And we have seen the huge (cough) progress made in removing that snail mail spam from the system.

    Honestly, there seems to have been more progress in weeding out the digital spam then the paper sort.
    Even vague sort of laws and protections and such.
    • Seriously. I have gotten two applications FOR THE SAME CREDIT CARD in one day. Tell me what sense that makes...
      • Probably minor variants in the same name or address. Speaking of which, non profits could save themselves a few bucks if they took the time to clean up their fund raising databases. I frequently get doubles from them (minor variations in address).
    • Is this any different then the stats of the dead tree style of spam that appears in my mailbox every day?

      Good point. I'd estimate it at ~75% for me, defining SPAM as 'unsolicited commercial package that I'm not interested in'. Near 0% for fraudulent letters, which I got about a half dozen of when I was a teen. Near 90% of the spam caught by my filters is fraudulent and illegal in nature.

      At least I can heat my house a bit with the dead tree spam.
  • This is hardy new. Anyone with an old (>10 years) domain name is on every spam address list in the galaxy and likely gets 99.99% spam. All my mail server does is run spam assassin and clamav and a few times per day, actually delivers a real message.
  • I get a fair bit of solicited and genuine email, and a moderate amount of spam. Thunderbird's and Gmail's filters seem to do almost all the filtering perfectly these days, but even checking the size of my inbox against my junk-boxes, I have to say that I'm getting nothing like 95%. Not even 50%.

    Anecdotally, I don't think mine is an unusual scenario, which causes me to wonder: how many people are getting 96-100% spam, in order for this average to hold true? I mean, are there folks out there being inundated

    • My gmail account had 535 spams in the last 30 days against 20 genuine emails. So that's roughly 96%. My gmail account name hasn't been splashed anywhere public, I only use it for companies that require an email for registration and with friends. The account name is 10 characters long and won't appear in a dictionary anywhere.

      So I would guess that my usage patterns put me somewhere near the average and I'm seeing the spam levels that they talk about. You might be very lucky :)
    • In my case it is worst than 95%.
      in four days i've received 1514 spams
      I guess I have only received 30 or 40 legitimate emails for the same period.

      97.5/98% of all my emails are spam.
      Thunderbird does a pretty good job. I delete/flag manually 5 or 10 spams per day only.

      Why do I receive so many spams?
      I've got 3 different emails.
      My primary email address didn't change for years.
      It is available on my company's web site.
      It is obvious (surname@mycompany.com)

    • by nologin ( 256407 )
      The reason you're not seeing the 95% is because the study doesn't take the content per individual mailbox. It counts the 95% based upon what mail servers (and their anti-spam systems) see.

      Honestly, if you were seeing 95% of the content in your mailbox as SPAM, you would have ditched e-mail by now.

      Usually, the 95% does include e-mail sent to a bad recipient. The logic used by most anti-spam solutions is if that an e-mail got sent to mail server where the sender didn't know your e-mail address, the e-mail get
    • My account on my own domain doesn't get much spam, that is because the username is fairly unusual. HOWEVER the amount of spam the server gets is rather larger. It is offcourse rejected as it silently drops email for a non-existing account. Now it all depends on how well known your domain is, I had obscure ones that barely got touched and popular ones were I needed a seperate machine to just deal with it all. I don't even bother reading the admin email, you should as this is the official way to get in touch

  • by suv4x4 ( 956391 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @10:09AM (#21009861)
    Since most slashdotters are libertarians for some reason (and I could argue even I am to some degree) my question is: where's the technological efficient solution to this.

    We've seen some "free market" solutions which basically required that you pay a fee to every mail provider so they don't trash your email. And this didn't particularly help spam either.

    I come to the conclusion that spam as an issue is one of two things, or both of those things:

    1) Not that big of a problem (hard to believe if you are a mail provider / ISP yourself)

    2) Impossible to solve by means of free market solutions, and requires cooperation and standardization of new technology.

    Point 2 is hard to happen since every little startup that comes with a mini solution, trumpet it on their own and hence they are only a nuissance to deal with in the big picture (due to lack of a single standard, it's impossible to have clients which make the process of whitelisting easier and even half automatic).

    Here are couple of solution which would get us half-there, but are only quarter-implemented right now:

    1) Whitelist SMTP servers by talking back to the supposed mail of origin and comparing IP-s. The SMTP may return list of IP-s this host responds from. This is then cached and used for further authentication on this domain. It *may* lead to DoS if many hosts do a first-time check simultaneously, but it's unlikely (and less problematic, given we're eliminating 95% of bad emails this way).

    2) Test-for-human-intelligence in your first email to a new email. Such as, I don't know, some sort of CAPTCHA you fill-in? Once this is done, communication can proceed without further tests between those two emails. The receiver still has the option to block you, lest you employ a mechanical turk.

    Those solutions are boring, they're incomplete in a way, they introduce hassle, but if we *all* agree on those, they can be made less of a hassle, and still not lose their efficacy.

    That would require the likes of AOL, Hotmail, Gmail and so on free mail providers to cooperate with the likes of Microsoft, Apple, Linux devs and so on, to implement this on both the clients and servers.

    Right now, I could see Hotmail cooperating with Microsoft (.. wink, wink.. :P ), but that's where it ends.
    • Established technology can be replaced if a technology for another use becomes popular enough, and can be adapted to replace the existing technology, and has some advantage. For email, two candidate technologies are notification feeds like RSS or Atom, and social web sites like Myspace and Facebook.

      Both have an advantage over email in that you can control who you receive messages from because the sender identity cannot be faked. In RSS, you poll to get updates, so you know with certainty who you are polli

    • by jfengel ( 409917 )
      I'd say that the real skew on the free market comes from the armies of spambots. They can spew essentially infinite spam, which gives the spammers a huge thumb on the scales in any free competition between us and them.

      I'd say the agreement that needs to be made between us is to start shunning ISPs who behave so impolitely. Email is a commons, and subject to the tragedy of the commons. The solution to the tragedy of the commons is politeness.

      This commons is so large that there's actually room for consider
    • by oni ( 41625 )
      Just FYI, Libertarians do *not* believe that the free market is a panacea, only that it is usually better than a government solution in terms of efficiency and the resulting choice and freedom.
  • Anyone else getting a lot of spam in German? I don't think the spammers know that I can speak German, but I would say that at least 25% of my spam these days is in German.
  • We can't stop it because we aren't addressing the real problem. Spam is an economic problem. People send out spam because they make money off of it. And they will therefore continue to send out spam as long as they make money off of it.

    If you want to stop spam, you have to remove the economic incentive. To do that, you need to cut off the co-conspirators that are allowing the spamvertised domains to be established and hosted. If you can either prevent them from getting a cut off the action, or punish them severely for taking their cut, then you can stop spam.

    Until then, if all we do is try to filter spam out, we'll just continue to see the costs of inaction. Beyond that, we're ignoring the fact that filtering has real costs, as well. Filtering doesn't prevent the spam from traversing the internet, and furthermore it requires human time to update as the spammers change their tactics.
    • We can't stop it because we aren't addressing the real problem. Spam is an economic problem. People send out spam because they make money off of it. And they will therefore continue to send out spam as long as they make money off of it.

      If you want to stop spam, you have to remove the economic incentive. To do that, you need to cut off the co-conspirators

      You're right, but for the wrong (IMO) reason. Spam has economic incentive because all the costs of email are borne by the recipient. Botnets have made it even cheaper. You must remove that if you want to really fix the problem.

      If you do not remove the economic incentive, nothing will work because it will just be an arms race and the "good guys" will necessarily always be on the defensive side.

  • by kthejoker ( 931838 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @10:16AM (#21009947)
    As email asymptotically reachs 100% spam, we will have essentially created a mechanism whose sole goal is to deliver us undesired ads and scams. Talking about spam detectors and blockers and blacklists is irrelevant. Why devote all of this energy to ensure that maybe 5, 10, or 20 people can contact you or your business a day? Or even 20,000, which only highlights the issue that separating spam from valid emails is just bad juju. Simply put, there is no solution to asynchronous communication that is not too tedious or too restrictive. We'd be a lot better off if we blew up all the email servers, and put all of the energy and cost savings into developing encrypted telepathy. You think I'm kidding.
    • We'd be a lot better off if we blew up all the email servers, and put all of the energy and cost savings into developing encrypted telepathy. You think I'm kidding.
      Woah, how did you know what I was thinking? Wait a minute!!!!
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by mrjb ( 547783 )
      and put all of the energy and cost savings into developing encrypted telepathy
      It will never work. Considering the trash in my brain, I must conclude that it has already been done, and it has already been compromised.
  • by s_p_oneil ( 795792 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @10:38AM (#21010271) Homepage
    ...before it reaches the level of spam I get in the mailbox in front of my house. I swear, if we want to save the trees, we need to start by arresting the people putting all those unwanted 20-100 page sales catalogs in everyone's mailbox every day.
  • by Trifthen ( 40989 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @10:53AM (#21010493) Homepage

    I hate to bring up anecdotal evidence, but, while I still get spam, my flood has gone down to a relative trickle simply by plugging postgrey into postfix. I could probably reduce it to zero with a bayesian filter, but I won't bother. Scanning through my logs, my server rejects literally thousands of spams every day, and I'm just one guy with two email addresses and a handful of aliases.

    So, it would come as no surprise to me that spam volume is that high, I just never see it. I almost want to turn off my filter for a day just to see what would happen.

    Well, maybe not. :)
    • by Anti-Trend ( 857000 ) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @01:54PM (#21013437) Homepage Journal
      I knew somebody would bring up greylisting. :) During the business day[1], I work for a company that produces several widely-used anti-spam appliances and a service-based filter as well. We see about 2,000 networks a week, and get a pretty good feel for spam trends and countermeasure effectiveness. I can say with all honesty that in my experiences, greylisting hurts more than it helps for most organizations.
      Basically, greylisting is putting an email transaction on hold to see if the sender will retry. The idea is that if the sender is illigitimate, they won't bother resending. However, spammers have been onto this method for as long as it's existed, much moreso lately. All they have to do is take greylisted hosts and move them to the end of their script for later processing. The second time around, the spam gets through anyway. Even with its meager benefits, most organizations want email to come through as quickly as possible, and greylisting delays email by its very nature. It's also much less effective than existing technology that won't hinder most legitimate mail like DNSBL and/or SPF, spamwords+OCR (for image spam), and blocking on unknown recipients.
        To summate, if greylisting makes you happy, then don't let me dissuade you from using it. it does indeed stop some spam. But please don't give the false impression that it's a magic bullet; most of the complaints we receive are from clients who've enabled greylisting and can't figure out why their mail is delayed.

      [1] I am also a consultant to another firm who hosts manged email with spam filtering. Due to the complaints above, we have also disabled greylisting there. It was only effective at stopping about 5% of spam reliably, but a delay is put on all mail that isn't otherwise whitelisted. There are plenty of other methods which are both more effective and don't slow down the mailflow or tie up much resources on the MTA.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Trifthen ( 40989 )
        I think you miss the true point of greylisting. See, the delay is only half of the whole equation. Sure, the host may try again, but I'm also subscribed to a few relatively non-strict DNSBL lists. Now, imagine the combination:
        1. Spammer sends a spam.
        2. Spam gets delayed by 5 minutes.
        3. Lazy Spammer neglects to resend. EOM.
        4. Spammer gets put into a DNSBL sometime during the day.
        5. Creative Spammer resends several hours later.
        6. Rejected as bad host, due to DNSBL.

        Also, postgrey, like most greylist p

  • Despite all the recent hoopla about Russian criminal gangs the article makes it clear that the US leads the world in zombied boxes.

    My point is not that Americans are evil, but rather than we need to look a lot closer to home in tackling these problems rather than looking for some grand criminal conspiracy to crack.

    The conspiracy may exist but if local ISPs simply refused to route packets from zombied boxes then their owners would soon work out they had to do something.
  • I think there's more to the spam problem then the usual people we blame for it.

    I have a personal email address on my own domain that used to NEVER get spam. I moved into my own apartment a month ago and I signed up a new phone number with Bell Canada and a new account with my local city utility company. I gave that email address to both without thinking- usually I give one of my alternates. Well, now that address is getting tons of spam of the worst kind.

    So, either Bell or my local utility sold my address.
  • I keep seeing statements, including one in the PDF report from TFA, that Win+IE users can get their machines infected with malware just by visiting a web site, without even clicking their mouse on anything in the site. However, these statements always seem to come from people who make money in the security business, and they never seem to say anything about what the actual IE vulnerabilities are. I'm very skeptical, although I haven't run Windows in a decade, so maybe I'm just naive. Can any slashdotters wi

To be a kind of moral Unix, he touched the hem of Nature's shift. -- Shelley