Putting the Kybosh on Spam (Part 1)
Oct 13, 2005, 00:15 (11 Talkback[s])
(Other stories by Brandioch Conner)
Desktop-as-a-Service Designed for Any Cloud ? Nutanix Frame
By Brandioch Conner
Here's the short answer on how you ("you" being the recipient)
can stop spam: you can't. The real problem is the other email
admins and ISP's do not see the need to correctly configure and
maintain their own systems.
Spam isn't a problem just because it means you get a lot of
mail. Spam eats up bandwidth and there's an increasing probability
that you'll delete a legitimate message while wading through the
I'm not even going to define what "spam" is because it means
different things to different people and there's always an argument
about "what if such and such and such happened, would it still be
'spam'?" Even if you only consider the machine sending it you still
run into problems. Right now, I know of five different ways to send
spam (listed in order of annoyance to me).
- Spam zombies
- Open relays
- Free email accounts (phisher's phavorite)
- Legitimate companies that get stupid
- Spam companies/"bulletproof" ISP's that use their own
"Spam zombies" are bad, right? But how do you identify a spam
zombie during the SMTP connection? You can't check the machine
itself for infections. All you can check is the data that is
published (or the absence thereof) and its actions. Here are some
of the characteristics of a "spam zombie."
- It is in an ISP's "home" or dynamically assigned IP
- But so are some legitimate mail servers run by people who don't
understand why they should spend money for a static IP address (and
"static" in this context does not mean "I haven't seen it
- Not all ISP's correctly identify those ranges.
- It does not have a correct DNS/rDNS
- But there are also email admins who don't have that either.
(And one of those admins also has a box in a dynamic range from
- Currently, it fails to re-send if it gets a non-fatal
error from the receiving server.
- This means that "greylisting" is, currently, very effective
- But there are also email admins who have not correctly
configured their systems to handle non-fatal errors, either.
- Not everyone is happy with the delay on legitimate
I'm sure everyone can see where this is going now. I work for a
small insurance company and I've still had to make seven specific
exceptions for clients who fit one or more the above cases. I'm
sure it only gets worse as your company gets larger. And that isn't
even counting the spammer's ability to adapt faster than
many of the email admins. Spammers are one of the first groups to
adopt SPF. I know the problems with SPF so don't bother with that.
The point is that the spammers will adopt anything that they
believe will get their spam through your defenses.
Spam zombies would be almost completely wiped out if the ISP's
- Correctly identify their sub-nets
- Completely block outgoing port 25 on their dynamic
sub-net.(Businesses should already be blocking outgoing port 25 at
their firewall, except for their legitimate mail server.)
But that's not going to happen soon because it isn't financially
reasonable for them to do so. For each person who used to send via
port 25, the ISP's tech support people would have to deal with a
support call from that person. Not to mention the additional
training those support techs would need. Not to mention any
infrastructure changes that they'd have to implement. Not to
mention that some of them do not have the expertise necessary to do
so. Long story short, it's not going to happen. Some will (Comcast
does), many won't.
Right now, I've dramatically reduced the spam we receive with a
combination of tests based upon the above three criteria that
cumulate in an unknown box being forced into greylisting. But this
is only a temporary and very brittle fix. All it would take for the
spam zombies to defeat it would be for them to re-send their spam
after 1 hour. That should be a minor code change and it should be
easy to push out to all the zombies. Like I said, the spammers are
faster to adapt than a lot of the legitimate email admins.
In preparation for that day, I'm collecting statistics on all
our sent/received email. When worse comes to worst, I'll fall back
to personal white/black lists. Yes, they suck. They suck badly.
They require far too much manual labour to maintain or they are too
easily defeated if scripted.
The good news is that it looks like 80% (by item, not size) of
our email is from/to the same servers, day after day. If you work
for an Internet sales company, your numbers are probably a lot
different. The bad news is that not all of that 80% is business
related. Most of it seems to be personal messages. So the remaining
20% may be more important from a business aspect than the 80%. So
the good news may not be that good.
On the other hand, the Spamassassin tests are getting better
every day. So even if I accept email from a spam zombie v2.0, there
is still a very good chance that it will be correctly identified as
spam. The downside is that once my system has accepted the email, I
cannot risk deleting it before the user sees it, just in case my
system is wrong. So the end user still has to wade through the
spam. But the more accurate my system is, the more my users will
come to accept its evaluation and so legitimate email may be
deleted by them just because they didn't have time to verify it and
took the machine's opinion as fact. Not to mention that a lot of
the tests being run depend upon other people already receiving the
spam and correctly identifying it and reporting it to the sites
that my system will check. This is great as long as I'm last on the
spammer's list, but when I'm first, the junk comes through.