🚀 go-pugleaf

From:
        clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)

Fri 23:34

 Subject:
        Re: Master SPAM list




In article <3519CCCC.93222E2E@hotmail.com>, Buzz  <purphaze@hotmail.com> wrote:

>The words trespass and private do not always apply on the internet.
>Am I wrong on this?

Quite.  Most Internet links are private property, and virtually all of
the systems connected to it are as well.  As such, the owners get to
decide what these links are being used for.  In the past, people didn't
get very upset about (minor) misuses, because, carrying each other's
traffic is part of the quid-pro-quo of existing on the Internet.

This is the problem. I say "it does not always apply", and you say
"Most internet links" "virtually all systems" do you see what the
difference is? MOST does not mean ALL, therefore it is safe to say that it
does not ALWAYS apply. I notice you did not state ALL internet
links are private. Why's that? because you know full well that
ALL internet connections are not private nor protected against
every kind of invasion. My statement stands.

However, nowadays, people are faced with the fact that the infrastructure
that they've spent 10s of millions of dollars establishing for their
own purposes, is now sponsoring freeloaders, and in many cases outright
criminals who are swamping their resources.

How could that all happened on a "protected" and
"private" internet?

>Are you expecting these things over the internet?

I'm expecting people to respect our wishes when they attempt to
use our resources.  They refuse to respect them.  And in many cases
they attempt to wreck or overload our systems when we try to stop
them.

One moment your claiming the net is private and protected, the next
moment your complaining that someone is stealing your resources and
you can't stop them. Which is it going to be?


>When you ask if I have any concept of what property rights
>are, Remember, I didn't invent spam, so why are you asking me
>as if I set the rules?

You have a number of rather erroneous assumptions about the
Internet, and spamming in general.  Leading you to some rather
ridiculous statements.  The Internet isn't public domain.
Our equipment is private property, intended _only_ for our
own purposes.

Yes, your EQUIPMENT is private property, but you cannot
assume everyone's internet connection is private and protected
from abuse or attack or whatever. Right?
I seems everyone is assuming that I support computer attacks, just
because I say this type of thing. I'm not accepting it or condoning
anything by pointing out this fact about the internet. Do you realize
that there are plenty of cable modems out there with file sharing
enabled, and they don't even know it. Talk about unprotected.
You can sit there and read, download, and upload to their hard
drive. (no, I have never done, accepted, or condoned it) I do
know what file and print sharing over a cable modem will allow!


>I only asked for an approximate number of Mb's absorbed by spam.

I've already given plenty of stats.

Here's another: with the 500 or so people at my company
participating in my "forward your spam to my analysis engine",
since September of 1997, they've forwarded me approximately 120,000
spams.  That's an average of 250 apiece.  Some users are up in the
thousands.  As for space, that works out to about 5Gb.

500 people is less than 1/2 of one percent of the company's total
population.  Work out the math.

OK, that's 100,000 employees receiving about a terabyte
per 6-7 months. (based on your numbers.)

If .5%=500 then 100%=100,000 employees
If .5%=5Gb then 100%=1000Gb (1Tb)


Next, how much is it costing us aside from computer resources?
We're using a one minute of lost productivity per spam average.
That seems high, but when you realize how offended some of our
people get about some of the junk they get,

No shit! My hair is still smokin' just from mentioning spam!

the amount of time taken up by Corporate Security tracking/explaining
certain types of extremely obnoxious (or threatening) spam, and by the vast
amounts of time chewed up by trying to cope with massive spamming
that takes whole systems down, it's probably conservative.

Work out the math: at $100/hour loaded labour rate, 120,000 spams
works out to about 2000 hours, or, $200,000.  Then remember that
it's less than 1% of our company reporting.  Some of our estimates
for the total of lost time due to email spam up in the $4-5 million
range per year.  Mine is around $50,000-$100,000 per _week_.

If .5%=$200,000 then 100%=$40,000,000 (6 months)

So your company spends $80 million every year on
spam related things? This is vastly different to 4-5 million.
Can you clarify? Math is correct.

>Yes, that is a large number, much more than I imagined.
>It's an outrage to know that it has reached that level without
>any firm body or committee to be assigned to stop it.

Join CAUCE at www.cauce.org and support the Smith Bill.  There
is a lot going on.  There are many other organizations.

I will read it. Thank you for the example. This is the first
real numbers I have been given, that were not just estimates of
a perception. I would love to know the name of the
company, but I can understand your not wanting to
say the name. $80 million a year is a staggering amount.
Even if it is only an estimate.

>Chris, if the spam has been constantly coming in for a
>while now, and in huge numbers, doesn't that indicate
>that someone (or many someone's) are responding positively
>to it? Like someone has to be buying what their selling, or
>wouldn't even the most hardened advertise give up at that point?

I've spoken to hundreds of spammers under varying conditions,
and the answer is always the same - they do not make any money
at all.  One guy advertising raffle tickets for an internationally
respected charity admitted to having only been able to sell one
ticket, and got ripped off for a couple more.

>snipped for length

Depending on where you look, between 80% and 95% of all spam
is either sex ads, or "get rich quick using Internet marketing"
ads.  No other advertisements repeat beyond a few iterations.
Sex sells, as it always does.  _Nothing_ else does, aside from the
false dreams sold by the spammers-for-hire.

Well, if sex & get rich scheme's sell, and they represent 80-95% of
the spam , (depending where you look) it's no wonder they keep
sending it. Brings me back to my first point. Someone has to be
buying. Your telling me the only thing up there, is the only thing
selling very well....


>They risk being prohibited by ISP's, they risk being sued and
>risk the wrath of many knowledgeable computer users. Why do
>they continue to do this if no one is buying?

They've been suckered.
There has got to be more to it than that. Think about it.
You are making a big assumtion here.

>And secondly, if people are reading and buying, then this
>would be considered a service not a dis-service. So
>does that mean you would be cutting off a "service" for some.


The problem is becoming quite serious of late.  I've had literally
hundreds of people ask me what to do about all of the porn spam
being rammed down their throats, about how many people are afraid
to participate on the Internet for fear of being bombarded with junk,
and how difficult it is for children to participate at all, anywhere
on the net.

This is how I learned that the internet was not private nor protected.
(like it should be!)

We have spammers sending pornographic pictures into schoolnet
and k12.  We have  spammers sending rape pictures into
alt.sexual.abuse.recovery.  We have spammers sending mail and
Usenet messages containing javascript programs that attach
you without warning to porn web sites just by clicking on the
message.

It has to stop.

Agreed. (as does deforestation).

>BTW  thank you for not resorting to repeated personal
>attacks, one or two is no problem.

It would help if you were a little careful about the assertions
you make based on inadequate information.

Inadequate information seems all that can be obtained when
you try to measure spam's real cost to users. Getting hard
numbers is like pulling teeth. You point is well taken though.

Thank You

Buzz
Ottawa