Record Broken: 82% of U.S. Email is Spam

Datamation ^ | May 5, 2004 | Sharon Gaudin

[FourPeas]

Outdoing most analysts' worst predictions, spam accounted for 82 percent of all U.S. email last month.

After a two-month drop in spam, the number of unsolicited bulk email skyrocketed in April, bringing the saturation number up to record levels here in the U.S. and across the world, according to MessageLabs, Inc., a security company based in New York.

''This is as bad as we've seen it,'' says Paul Wood, chief information security analyst for MessageLabs. ''I think it's likely that it will continue to rise but perhaps not at the same rate that it did in the past month.''

And April did show a dramatic increase.

According to Wood, spam was on a steady increase last year, going from a 50 percent saturation in the middle of 2003 to 63 percent in January of this year. But then there was a largely unexpected sharp decline. February saw the rate drop to 59 percent, and March was even lower at 52.8 percent. That means in March, spam accounted for 52.8 percent of all the email traveling around the world.

But that drop was short-lived.

In April the rate shot back up, surpassing the January high, to hit 67.6 percent globally. And here in the United States, it hit 82 percent.

''You have to wonder if this will eventually affect people using email,'' says Wood. ''We haven't seen a decrease in email usage but we'll have to see how high the numbers go.''

Earlier in the year, security analysts warned that spam was increasing at such an alarming rate that they expected it to make up 80 percent of all email by the third quarter of 2004. That prediction was several months off.

And spam has a big market to target.

The Radicati Group, Inc. reports this week that there now are 980 million active email accounts around the world, and 40 percent of those are corporate accounts.

Wood says he attributes the drop in spam during February and March to the CanSpam Act that went into effect this past January. He adds, though, that the act, which has been criticized for not having enough enforcement teeth and for allowing far too much unsolicited email to continue to flow legally, hasn't stopped spamming. Wood says he figures that the major spammers just slowed down operations so they could figure out how to better dress up their spam to make it appear to fit into the legal limits.

Once that was done, they could resume operations with even more force.

''It's not legitimate,'' says Wood. ''It's just dressed up to make it look that way.''

Wood also attributes the rise in spam to the huge number of open proxies on the Net.

Virus writers began teaming up with spammers last year, and so far it's been a dangerous combination. Virus writers send out malicious code that infects computers and opens a back door in the machine. A hacker then can use that back door to remotely control the computer, sending out more viruses, Denial of Service attacks or millions of pieces of spam.

Wood estimates that 70 percent of spam is sent through open proxies.

[lewislynn]

82% of U.S. Email is Spam

Just like real mail.

[lewislynn]

I can go searching when it appears I've missed an e-mail that I actually want. I've had to go searching there more times than I can count.

Just like real mail.

[CIB-173RDABN]

The solution will be to wage economic warfare, not against the senders of spam, but against the advertisers who make use of it. Once the consequences of associating oneself with spam outweighs the potential benefits, it will stop.

---

I agree with you. Go after the business that profits (by selling whatever they sell) and fine them. Make it a hugh fine, and have half paid by the business and half by the person or persons that actually generate the spam. If the person that generates the spam can not be found, or can not pay, then the business pays the whole fine (this would encourage them to co-operate with the authorities in trackng down the techno geek actually sending out the spam.

If all that is too much, then how about a law saying ok, send out what you want, but the subject line must include something like THIS IS SPAM or XXX and they would be fined for not doing so, this way the filters would work. And while were passing laws, make it illegal to use someone elses email address, they must include there real email address, real street address, real names and real phone numbers, just incase someone does want to buy something, they would know who to contact.

[poindexter]

The problem is that sending e-mail is free. If it cost $0.01 per e-mail to send, that wouldn't hurt the legit senders, but it would cost spammers a bundle.

As usual, when something's free, it causes problems.

[nhoward14]

I have a coworker that runs a small ISP on the side and he has spent 9 months writing a program just to filter mail on his network. You say you don't want to be an expert, but look at the list of tricks he has seen used:

misspelled words
extra spaces
extra punctuation
non-standard encoding of text
numbers used for letters
letters used for numbers
escape character sequences used instead of letters
encrypted URLs
encoded URLs
encoded attachments
encrypted attachments
numerous tricks that exploit bugs in Microsoft programs
non-standard HTML code
non-standard Java code
non-standard Perl code
URLs that do not get displayed but instead download a file at read time
Combinations of escape sequences and garbage text that make extremely long lines but when interpreted by email readers is only one word
At least a dozen other means that are so esoteric only experienced programmers could understand them

[nhoward14]

How do you apply a US law to foreign entities? Most spam characterization says at least 90% of spam is sent from Asia.

[Charlotte Corday]

As much as I hate spam, is this that much different than what comes in my mailbox (the USPS mailbox)

If you, not the sender, had to pay for the transmission of printed junk mail, you'd need a D-5 Cat to clear out your mailbox every day.

[expat_brit]

an open proxy is a poorly configured system, which spammers use to disguise their identity/location see..

http://www.lurhq.com/proxies.html

[Delta 21]

I pity the "friend or family" that sends me a FWD: with a couple a thousand email addys on it. It took a while but they all know better.

If my spam level even aproaches 5% my household knows to steer clear of Daddy while he is on the computer.

[Let's Roll]

No.

I have Earthlink - and it is a full service ISP which costs more than the cut rate ones BUT

Basically it lets you turn on their "high" spam blocker and they don't let anyone through to your inbox except those in your address book.

They send a message to all those they block telling them your mail box is being blocked and giving them the option of stating their business. You see those statements and that catches Aunt Gladys who you forgot to include in your address book and the online order confirmations etc. When you see those requests you can decide to accept them into your mailbox or not.

Earthlink holds everyone else in a suspected folder and you can also go into it and double check for Aunt Gladys and/or permanently block the spammers or not and the folder self cleans every two weeks.

This sounds like a lot of involvement on your part but I've only been doing it for a couple of weeks - although had Earthlink for years - and I can already see that I will soon be letting that folder self clean every two weeks and rely on the Aunt Glady's to make their requests.

This service does not cost any more, but I do pay c. $22 a month. They also have a virus blocker you can turn on and an accelerator for those still on dial up.

I would recommend earthlink or similar ISP - it is worth it.

Also good tech support.

[Wheee The People]

he has spent 9 months writing a program just to filter mail on his network

What a waste of time...The are several FREE modules available as open source. SpamAssassin comes to mind. Why reinvent the wheel?

[Physicist]

Go after the business that profits (by selling whatever they sell) and fine them.

No, I was thinking of a more informal approach. Arrange with the banks that do business with the offender to suspend their credit. Lean on the suppliers that the business uses, and disrupt their supply chains. Disrupt the personal credit of the individuals who own the offending businesses. File a barrage of nuisance lawsuits in far-flung locations.

I'm not advocating any of these specific approaches, particularly if they are illegal. I'm merely predicting that when the problem gets bad enough, such weapons will be brought to bear in an ad hoc manner.

[CIB-173RDABN]

Go after the business that is profiting. Stop the flow of money to them, dry up the reason for spam in the first place.

Again, a simple law not outlawing spam, but making it illegal to send without the senders name and address, and with a line in the subject that lets people know it is advertising. That way, those that do not want to receive unwanted ads, can filter them out.

[Atlas Sneezed]

How do you apply a US law to foreign entities? Most spam characterization says at least 90% of spam is sent from Asia.

---

All we need are tarrifs on international communications (like a penny a message).

[Redcloak]

I would guesstimate that 90% of what is sent to us is spam. However, we're on SBC-Yahoo and their spam blocking service stops nearly all of it. It's diverted to a folder that's only available online; you have to use their web-based viewer to see it. Mail sits there for 30 days before being automatically deleted. In the last 30 days, nearly 1800 slices of spam ended up there. (Roughly 100 made it through, but Mozilla's spam detector caught those.)

[Wheee The People]

Most spam characterization says at least 90% of spam is sent from Asia.

Perhaps, but it advertises a mortgage or penis enlargement that is US based. Follow the money. I say vigilantes go out and string 'em up by their fingernails. (Not really)

[bmwcyle]

Kill all the SPAMMERS!

[In_25_words_or_less]

Record Broken: 82% of U.S. Email is Spam

And why is that? It's because there are plenty of people out there clicking on that junk!

[No Truce With Kings]

"Go after the business that profits (by selling whatever they sell) and fine them."

How about the morons that buy from spammers? If no one bought stuff from spammers, there would be no economic incentive to send spam.

I say that when you catch a spammer -- especially one selling penis or brest enlargement products, "performance" drugs and other such nonsense that the list of their customers be publicly released. "Joe Schmoe from Porkeepsie NJ bought FIFTEEN bottles of Vlagra -- a fake knockoff of Viagra from a spammer. Guess ol' Joe's having problems."

A little well-placed humiliation would go a long way towards reducing the demand side -- which in turn would reduce the economic incentive to spam.

[Yaelle]

Use something like Thunderbird

This is what I do. I have set it so that only those in my address book can get into my inbox, and the spam stays in the junk file. Yes, I have to whiz through it briefly each day to catch any decent newcomers, but it does keep my inbox down to wanted email only.