LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Fighting Spam
689848
Regarding the article '"Bad guys' are ahead despite fight against spam" (Dec. 6): Spam is the normal consequence of free e-mail as provided by nearly all Internet access providers. Sending a million pieces of junk e-mail is almost free for the spammer.
663936
bulk messages clogging instant-messaging accounts. AOL and its Anti-Spam Alliance partners -- EarthLink, Microsoft, and Yahoo
554133
A technological weapon against unwanted &#39;&#39;spam&quot; e-mails that has been embraced by leading Internet companies doesn&#39;t work as well as its developers had hoped, according to a new study.
19790
Legitimate mortgage lenders inadvertently support--and get tangled in--spam traps.
495744
It&#39;s an ill wind, as they say. If you believe the word on the anti-spam lists, Hurricanes Charley, Frances and Ivan have all disrupted one of Florida&#39;s major internet businesses: spamming.
720622
To curb spam, getting your Hotmail via Outlook/Express won&#39;t be free much longer ... posted 12:49pm EST Tue Sep 28 2004 - submitted by Christopher R. Anderson.
321247
Blog: Spammers appear to defeat Captcha and use fake Microsoft and Yahoo Web mail addresses to spread spam.
702986
By JENNIFER C. KERR    WASHINGTON  -- What would it take to get someone to turn in one of those spammers who send millions of unwanted e-mails? At least $100,000, the Federal Trade Commission figures...
147389
Say hello to 3D spam Spammers have added a fresh dimension to the fight against junk mail with the creation of image spam rendered in a pseudo 3D layout.â¦
669540
A technological weapon against unwanted ''spam&quot; e-mails that has been embraced by leading Internet companies doesn't work as well as its developers had hoped, according to a new study.
56130
Users should be wary of pressing the 'click here to remove' link on spam messages because it serves to confirm to spammers that junk mail messages are being read.
259281
Spam: Death By A Million Paper Cuts  The organization I work for receives 19-20 UCEs (Unsolicited Commercial Email) per second, 1.7-2 million potential UCEs per day, 11.7 million UCEs per week. I only have 13,000 email users. These users were desperate and email for many was unusable. Me and another co-worker had 3 months to implement a plan to get rid of most of it. I had to document every step we took and I had one shot to accomplish this. At the end of that time it had to work and it had to be noticeable.    I am not an expert on spam. However, I have learned many things about UCEs and what can be done to fight it and how to adjust to UCEs' dynamic nature.
492291
So you think you get a lot of spam, maybe a few hundred per day? Well think about the amount that bill gates gets at Microsoft, over 4 million a day apparently!
370610
There's an old parable that goes like this:A man is sentenced to death by the king. In desperation, he asks that his life be spared if he can teach a pig to sing. The king agrees, and gives the man a year. Walking the man back to his cell, a guard comments that it seems like a foolish bargain; he doesn't really expect to be able to do it, does he? The man replies, "A lot can happen in a year. The king could die. I could die. Or who knows, maybe the pig will learn to sing."(Maybe it's an allegory. Or a fable. I can never keep these things straight.)I'm using the pig story to segu&#233; into Bayesian spam filters. But first, a quick trip back to spam filters in general. E-mail spam has been around for a while, and different schemes have been developed to determine whether a piece of e-mail is (probably) legit, or whether it's spam. One way is to create a blacklist of senders: Nothing from, say, 123junk.com is allowed into your inbox. Another is a whitelist: If you aren't an approved sender (e.g., mom, dad, Cousin Jimmy), you're mail won't go through. A third is the 'word search,' which looks for the kinds of words that rarely make it into a legitimate e-mail: "Viagra" springs to mind, and there are plenty of others that can't be printed on a family Web site. All of these anti-spam techniques have problems, mostly because they were either too narrowly focused to be effective, or because they were too easy for spammers to get around.But then came a different kind of spam filter - one based on the work of an obscure mathematician from the 18th century. One that works.Reverend TomThomas Bayes was an English Presbyterian minister and mathematician who lived from 1702 to 1761 in and near London. He only published two things while he was alive: a paper that tried to prove that God wants everyone to be happy, and another defending the accuracy of the calculus. After he died, though, is when Bayes's most important work was published. Called "Essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances," it was discovered by an acquaintance (one Richard Price, for those of you who like the details) who sent it to the Royal Society which published it in its Philosophical Transactions in 1763.Out of that paper came what's called Bayes's Rule or Bayes's Theorem. It's a formula for guessing how likely it is that something will happen based on two or more independent events. Imagine you want to know what the chances of your 1986 Toyota Corolla making it cross country. Some "independent events" that might stop you are your engine failing, your transmission failing, your tires failing, and so on.To apply Bayesian probability here, you would figure the odds of each of those things, then input those numbers into Bayes's formula (which, by the way, is fairly simple). Let's say you figure the chance of your engine failing is 10%, the chance of your transmission failing is 15%, and the chance of your tires failing is 30%. Popping the numbers into Rev. Tom's formula tells you that the chance of your trip being ruined by any one of these things is actually less than 1%. Happy trails.(Is this counterintuitive? Maybe. Check out another example at Process Software.In 2002, Paul Graham changed the spam war forever when he published an article called "A Plan for Spam". In it, he demonstrated how Bayes's work could be used to sort out spam from legitimate e-mail.Instead of calculating the odds of whether your car will make it across the country, Graham used Bayesian techniques to determine how likely a piece of mail is to be spam. It bases this on how likely each word is to be in a spam message.(By the way, the word "word" is misleading. Bayesian filters also take into account things like Web links, text colors, and font size.)Thus, the more spam messages (and good messages) you get, the more information a Bayesian filter has and the better it gets at identifying junk. A lot of very good anti-spam products are based on Bayesian techniques.And they work very, very well.Basic trainingFirst, a Bayesian filter has to be trained; you need to tell it these are legit messages and these are spam. (Every Bayesian filter has a simple way to do this, usually by having you put all your spam in one mailbox. It then scans that Spam box for spam, and your Inbox for legit mail.)The filter looks at the words in every message to get an idea of what spam looks like. For example, if the word "buy" appears in 100 spam messages and only one legit message, it might be given a score of .99 - there's a 99% chance a message with "buy" in it is spam.On the other hand, the word "column" would (for me) be the opposite; it might appear in 99 legit messages and only one spam, and thus get a score of .01 or one percent.After going through this training process, the Bayesian software ends up with a list of words and their spammish probabilities (often called a "corpus"). When a new message arrives, the filter looks through the words in it and gives each a score based on those 'training' messages. Then it uses Bayes's formula to come up with a score for the message as a whole. If that's above a certain threshold, the message is tagged as spam and either marked, deleted, or separated.But the real beauty of the Bayesian-filter system comes next, when spam gets through. It's bound to do that, because spammers always try new tricks - they put in long passages of poetry, or try to disguise words with odd misspellings, or come up with other ways to sneak by. When a piece of spam ends up in your Inbox, a Bayesian filter has an extra option: one to mark it as junk. Sometimes it's a button or menu choice, other times you just need to move the message to a Spam folder. It also works the other way: Legit messages may land in the Spam box for various reasons, and they must be re-routed. Either way, the filter now knows what the newest kind of spam looks like.Bayesian filters work because they aren't dependent on things that might change: the way words are spelled, or where a message comes from. All they care about is what you say is spam. At least one filter, POPFile, actually lets you set up categories beyond just 'spam' and 'not spam,' so you can teach it to automatically sort out messages on a particular topic.There are a lot of technical ideas out there for curbing the flow of spam, but I'm willing to bet that none of them will work very well. Stopping spam is up to us, and Reverend Bayes has given us a powerful tool.Andrew Kantor is a technology writer, pundit, and know-it-all who covers technology for the Roanoke Times. He's also a former editor for PC Magazine and Internet World. Read more of his work at kantor.com. His column appears Fridays on USATODAY.com.
716383
Anti-spam vendors hit back on Tuesday against analyst firm Gartner&#39;s claims that the level of spam is falling. &quot;I don&#39;t agree with it at all,&quot; said Mark Sommer, chief technology officer at MessageLabs.
627144
By Matthew Spina, The Buffalo News, N.Y.  May 28--Never mind the spam for the "chance of a lifetime" sweepstakes or  the package for lovers at a discount price. The volume of e-mail between  friends, family and working stiffs has become, well . . .
255264
For years, spam haters have relied on junk-mail filters and Internet blacklists, but some are saying it's time for a change in tactics.