🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <351DE8A2.C25838E8@hotmail.com>, Buzz  <purphaze@hotmail.com> wrote:
>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?

<I wrote>:
>>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.

Um, not.  There are more than two classes here.  The other class that
I didn't mention specifically is "government owned".  _Not_ publically
owned.  There are _no_ publically owned links or systems.  Government
links and systems are under even stricter rules than privately owned.
Even freenets aren't publically owned/public domain.  Even when DARPA
ran the infrastructure, none of the infrastructure could be called
"public domain".

>>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?

Spam making it past filters, flooding gateways.  No filtering mechanism
is perfect.  In our case, we have 10s of thousands of unwanted email
messages going through our network weekly, with no way of stopping it.
In essence, we are unwillingly subsidizing advertising with very expensive
infrastructure..

>>>>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?

I'm claiming that _our_ net is private and protected as best
we can make it, yet, they're still crashing through our protections
and stealing our resources.  If it wasn't private, they couldn't be
stealing, now could they?

>>>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?

Wrong.  Everyone's internet connection is private (or at least
"not public").  The problem is that they aren't protected from
abuse or attack.  Why?  Because these sorts of attacks are
impossible to stop without pulling the plug on the Internet
entirely.

>>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)

Good, you know arithmetic.

>>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.

The .5% of the company that is reporting spam is a self-selected
sample of those most likely to (a) have seen the "report request"
bulletin, and (b) get lots of spam.  It is thus assumed that the
true incidence of spam isn't 200x the analysis numbers, but, probably
closer to 10-50x.  We haven't gotten a solid calibration factor
between my reports and total yet, hints are that it's between 10 and
20, which results in total costs of somewhere between $2 million
and $5 million.

>>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....

Ah, but you see, by its very nature, most of it is out-and-out fraud.
Someone in the US FCC mentioned doing a fast scan through a sample
of several hundred spams, and finding only a handful that weren't
fraudulent.

>>They've been suckered.

>There has got to be more to it than that. Think about it.
>You are making a big assumtion here.

Not in the slightest.  I know what results they're getting.  And
I've seen the advertisements.  I've seen people calling Canter&Siegel
visionaries, and their book an inspiration.  Yet, we all know
that they've been disbarred, and Canter is on the run from process
servers.  That Wallace is bankrupt, and Lipsitz is on the wrong
end of a hefty fine.  That no email spammer manages to stay up in
the same place for more than a few days.

>>>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.

Getting hard numbers is almost impossible.  Not because people
won't give them to you, but because it's almost impossible to
collect the numbers (unlike Usenet which is easy to measure).

I'm quite fortunate in the position I'm in because I've been able
to do research with a truly enormous base of users.  And I'm the
only one that I know of who has done some of this analysis.  Some
of the really large ISPs have done some, but, they're principally
interested in targetting individual spammers to get rid of them.
As in, when AOL sued Cyberpromo.

One would think that spammers getting whacked with really large
lawsuits would discourage spamming.  It hasn't had a big effect
yet.
-- 
Rumours of my demise are greatly exaggerated.
Cold but happy, please pass the thermos!

For more information on spam, see http://spam.abuse.net/spam