Stopping spam and Bill Gates - anyone believe his claim?

Well, I don't doubt he's a very powerful man, but this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3426367.stm) looks over the top. Thoughts?

i doubt it will work, as it envolves mr gates and where there is a will theres a way.remember:

"its not a bug, its a feature"


i can see it now, gates, charges spammers to be able to get through the system without doing any calculations or whatever.

scroots

how about we rename the tread to:
stopping bill gates - anyone game?

i can see it coming
MS spam filter 1.0: 500$
MS spam filter 1.1: 500$
MS spam filter 1.1.1 500$
MS spam filter 1.1.1.1 500$
MS spam filter 1.1.1.1.1 500$

by the last release, there'll be a new windows out with which MS spam filter will not be compatible and you'll have to buy MS spam filter 2.0, then 2.1 and then...

I don't see why Microsoft is any more qualified to make that claim than the next person or company, and seeing that no one else is claiming that, I have serious doubts. Artificial intelligence plays a critical role in the successful fight against spam, and unless Microsoft has some super AI bot in the works, I don't see how it can be effective.

The problem with fighting spam is that a lot of it is sent from zombie machines, making their return paths legitimate. This means the spam blocker has to intelligently decipher the actual email contents and determine whether it's spam. It's one thing looking for keywords like "viagra", but do you really trust your legitimate emails not getting blocked as a result?

The solution Gates seems to think of, that digital 'stamp', seems to me a lot like the idea discussed in this thread: <http://codingforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31312>

That is the single thing I can think of that will prevent spam - except if you implement some kind of hard-to-hijack general authorisation. As for Microsoft being more capable of actually pulling this stunt off than any other entiry I've seen, I think that would be a definite yes. They can do it in the same way they took over the browser market, but this time it will be for the general good. (Unless they go screw it up and make it a Microsoft-or-not-at-all solution.)

AOL moves to test out better spam blocking: http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-5145065.html?tag=nefd_lede Looks similar to the digital stamp concept if I understood it correctly.

I don't see how Microsoft is better positioned to fight spam. This isn't just an OutLook express issue, for example, but something that has to be fought at the server end, from the point of ISPs, within Open Source software such as Linux etc. Microsoft can only affect the Windows part of the equation.

The reason Microsoft can do it is not really that they have a large userbase, even though that helps. It is more of a question of balancing funds. Microsoft are probably willing to throw away far more money on this than anyone else, especially if they can see a way to either give their other products a hike from it, or to gain money from it themselves. And their meassures would be taken mostly serverside, if I understand them correctly. They are one of few players that are not susceptible to the counter weapons (http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/11/15/more-spam) spammers use, especially not if they join forces with others instead of trying to pull their own proprietary system.

Originally posted by WA
... Artificial intelligence plays a critical role in the successful fight against spam, and unless Microsoft has some super AI bot in the works, I don't see how it can be effective.
AI will never work since you can only make positive matches (like if the message contains certain words) to label them as spam. So if a spammer only sends nonsens they will get through. If they want to send an actual message that should contain 'forbidden words' then they will change these keywords like *PRO*MOTION* or whatever or send it as an HTML message and use javascript to compose the massage when opened.

So there is no hope on neural nets to filter them out.

The only use for AI would be pattern recognition (and then more specificaly the patternchanges) to counter people manipulating legitimate accounts or mailservers. If one account or one mailserver suddenly and drastically would change it's mailpattern, that it is probably hacked and used for spamming. (these detectionsystems are currently used by mobile phone companys and creditcard companys)


But i can also see MS plan : promoting the .Net password and offering a service like 'get your *free* .Net password and configure your mailserver/acount to only accept mails from other certifyed .Net passwordholders'
Wount be long before you need a .Net password to send a mail or to acces whatever application if 'Good Old Billy Boy gets the chance to protect us against the big bad web-hooligans'

But he is a clever guy. When he started nagging abouth him getting spammed (with offers to earn big bugs by filling out forms while he was clearly much to rich to solicid that sort of mail etc) a few monthes back, i thought: who is he kidding!
but it is all nicely planned and he wraps some storys (you cant call it lies, just because of the beauty of them) around it to make it look as a personal battle to solve our common problems etc.

i bet he will profit from it in the future one way or another.

looks like MS changed tack to help stop spam. I blame them for most of my spam, as a machine was found a year ago putting in 4 requests a second to see which emails where valid, the machine had been running for two years constantly.

so thats 126230400 email addresses tested a year so over two years thats 252460800, if only a quarter of them are valid thats still 63115200 email addresses to spam. Someone offered microsoft a free fix and they declined.


scroots

Originally posted by raf
AI will never work since you can only make positive matches (like if the message contains certain words) to label them as spam. So if a spammer only sends nonsens they will get through. If they want to send an actual message that should contain 'forbidden words' then they will change these keywords like *PRO*MOTION* or whatever or send it as an HTML message and use javascript to compose the massage when opened.

So there is no hope on neural nets to filter them out.

The only use for AI would be pattern recognition (and then more specificaly the patternchanges) to counter people manipulating legitimate accounts or mailservers. If one account or one mailserver suddenly and drastically would change it's mailpattern, that it is probably hacked and used for spamming. (these detectionsystems are currently used by mobile phone companys and creditcard companys)Surely (by definition), a sophisticated enough AI system, could tell spam and non-spam apart as well as a human?

However, there are two problems with that - firstly, that such AI sophistication is currently not achievable, not is it likely to be in the near future (although never say never), and secondly, what is spam to one man is not to another.

You guys are funny.

And you underestimate the dependency dicovery has on money.

Of course Bill Gates can work towards stopping spam.

Frankly, I have been able to work for FREE and have stopped all spam coming to my e-mail address permanently.

Stopping spam is no miracle. It's easy with no money, let alone having an entire system to stop.

You guys mentioned AI - that's all great but entirely unnecessary. That's like trying to create AI that can never lose at tic-tac-toe.

It's extremely unnecessary. Stopping spam is mystery, it's easily done 0.o

Originally posted by MysteryMan
You guys are funny.
Yes i know.

But i don't get your point like in any of the other post you've made in these forums. I don't even understand what you are trying to explain here and I don't quite see what your post contributes to this thread.

There have also been plenty of threads about ways to stop spam so your not they only one that solved his own little spam problem :rolleyes:

maybe post your emailadress here and we'll see how good your sollution is.:D

Originally posted by MysteryMan
Stopping spam is no miracle. It's easy with no money, let alone having an entire system to stop.He's right actually, and here's 3 ways that anyone can do it:

1) Stop using email altogether

2) Don't check your email, only send from the account

3) Set up mail forwarders so that any mail (spam or otherwise) is directed somewhere else and hence never arrives in your inbox.


Thanks for your ever-so-helpful, constructive input MysteryMan! (as always)


:rolleyes: :D

Originally posted by M@rco
He's right actually, and here's 3 ways that anyone can do it:

1) Stop using email altogether

2) Don't check your email, only send from the account

3) Set up mail forwarders so that any mail (spam or otherwise) is directed somewhere else and hence never arrives in your inbox.


Thanks for your ever-so-helpful, constructive input MysteryMan! (as always)


:rolleyes: :D

Yeah, or you could just actually post something worthwhile other than this.

Like I said - if you have sense, stopping spam is way too simple.

My statistics show my main e-mail box recieved 11,445 emails in the year 2003 and I recieved 143.

Out ofthe 143 I recieved, 143 were emails I wanted. 100% success with no failure :)

If I can do this with NO money, someone with unlimited funds - not too mention international government support, can do it.

You act like it's HIV or CANCER or something.

Originally posted by MysteryMan
You act like it's HIV or CANCER or something. Funnily enough, I discovered cures for both last week. It's easy with no money, I was working for FREE. If I can do it, the HIV and CANCER charities with their unlimited funds can do it. I don't see what's so difficult.

:D :p

Out ofthe 143 I recieved, 143 were emails I wanted. 100% success with no failure and how many legitimate emails were blocked?

Originally posted by me'
and how many legitimate emails were blocked?

Never. Based upon the system, it'd be impossible for a wanted e-mail to be blocked.

Then please explain how your system works. Include details.

My general thought on this is that if someone makes a filter to stop all spam, spammers will make something to bypass the filter. Someone improves the filter, someone else improves the bypasser.

I know it wouldnt work exactly like that but no-one will ever have spam or virus'/hackers completely under control. Or at least thats my thought.

I think filters are actually the way to go. What we need is to phase out 'html' email and introduce a new but much, much smaller markup language which would only allow for the use of hyperlinks and some other things but not allow embeded images.

That way spammers can't be 'clever' and replace text with images and filters can still seek out words.

My ISP has introduced a system of point scoring, all I do is set my filter to delete incoming mail with the following in it ( which the ISP adds )..


Spam detection software, running on the system "EMAIL_REMOVED", has
identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or block
similar future email. If you have any questions, see
csc@zircon.com.au for details.

Content preview: Are you thinking about buying a new car? Click Here for
your FREE New Car Price Quote from a local dealer:
http://clicks.digitalknowhow.net/redir.aspx?id2627&email=EMAIL REMOVED [...]

Content analysis details: (9.7 points, 5.0 required)

pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
1.3 NO_OBLIGATION BODY: There is no obligation
2.8 BANG_QUOTE BODY: Talks about quotes with an exclamation!
0.2 OFFERS_ETC BODY: Stop the offers, coupons, discounts etc!
2.8 FREE_QUOTE BODY: Free Quote
0.1 HTML_60_70 BODY: Message is 60% to 70% HTML
0.1 HTML_FONTCOLOR_BLUE BODY: HTML font color is blue
0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
0.5 HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_10 BODY: HTML has a low ratio of text to image area
0.1 HTML_LINK_CLICK_HERE BODY: HTML link text says "click here"
0.7 MIME_HTML_NO_CHARSET RAW: Message text in HTML without charset
0.2 HTTP_WITH_EMAIL_IN_URL URI: 'remove' URL contains an email address
0.0 MAILTO_TO_REMOVE URI: Includes a 'remove' email address
0.0 CLICK_BELOW Asks you to click below
0.2 MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART Spam tool pattern in MIME boundary
0.8 MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER Message-Id was added by a relay

The original message was not completely plain text, and may be unsafe to
open with some email clients; in particular, it may contain a virus,
or confirm that your address can receive spam. If you wish to view
it, it may be safer to save it to a file and open it with an editor.

It's easy to look at the concept and realize there is no such thing as technology that will stop spam.

Spam is not defined - this is the problem. I would never use a filteration system because it could delete valuable e-mails. And sifting through spam to find needed e-mails defeats the purpose.

To stop something you must no what it is....

What is spam? It's unwanted e-mail. But there is no property of the actual e-mail that can determin it being unwanted!

There is an IP address, a TO, a FROM, a subject, and a BODY.

None of these can stop unwanted email, simply because none of these content the property defining them as unwanted. Sure it can be CLOSE, but this is not the issue. The issue is STOPPING SPAM, not lowering it (lowering it can easily be done these days)....

There is but one rational way to stop spam. Stop it from existing. Disallow the ability for spam to be sent in the first place. This is the only way that 100% of spam can be stopped.

It's that simple.

This is a case where I think that it is so much easier to allow LAW to intervene, and fix the problem SO EASILY, than it is to battle back and forth lowering spam, then spammers sneak through, then lowering again etc...

Recently in America we have a new number we can call. When we call it and enter OUR phone number, it puts our number on a national DO NOT CALL LIST.

Any telemarketers must send their number database through this to make sure a number on their list has not been entered.

If it has, and they call it................they have hell to pay.

I think that it makes PERFECT sense to do this same thing for:

1. physical addresses
2. email addresses

I would much prefer a private solution, but by simple logical understanding of the undefined SPAM, there is no such solution.

No one can get spam if spam is never sent :)

THE EnD

It's easy to look at the concept and realize there is no such thing as technology that will stop spam.

Spam is not defined - this is the problem. I would never use a filteration system because it could delete valuable e-mails. And sifting through spam to find needed e-mails defeats the purpose.

To stop something you must no what it is....

What is spam? It's unwanted e-mail. But there is no property of the actual e-mail that can determin it being unwanted!

There is an IP address, a TO, a FROM, a subject, and a BODY.

None of these can stop unwanted email, simply because none of these content the property defining them as unwanted. Sure it can be CLOSE, but this is not the issue. The issue is STOPPING SPAM, not lowering it (lowering it can easily be done these days)....

There is but one rational way to stop spam. Stop it from existing. Disallow the ability for spam to be sent in the first place. This is the only way that 100% of spam can be stopped.

It's that simple.

This is a case where I think that it is so much easier to allow LAW to intervene, and fix the problem SO EASILY, than it is to battle back and forth lowering spam, then spammers sneak through, then lowering again etc...

Recently in America we have a new number we can call. When we call it and enter OUR phone number, it puts our number on a national DO NOT CALL LIST.

Any telemarketers must send their number database through this to make sure a number on their list has not been entered.

If it has, and they call it................they have hell to pay.

I think that it makes PERFECT sense to do this same thing for:

1. physical addresses
2. email addresses

I would much prefer a private solution, but by simple logical understanding of the undefined SPAM, there is no such solution.

No one can get spam if spam is never sent :)

THE EnD

Real valuable thoughts.

You first come on telling here what a bulletproof spamstopping sollution you found :
<<<<Of course Bill Gates can work towards stopping spam.

Frankly, I have been able to work for FREE and have stopped all spam coming to my e-mail address permanently.

Stopping spam is no miracle. It's easy with no money, let alone having an entire system to stop.>>>>

and

<<<<Like I said - if you have sense, stopping spam is way too simple.

My statistics show my main e-mail box recieved 11,445 emails in the year 2003 and I recieved 143.

Out ofthe 143 I recieved, 143 were emails I wanted. 100% success with no failure

If I can do this with NO money, someone with unlimited funds - not too mention international government support, can do it.>>>>

And after people repeatedly asked you about your superbe system, you come back with

<<<<It's easy to look at the concept and realize there is no such thing as technology that will stop spam.
...
What is spam? It's unwanted e-mail. But there is no property of the actual e-mail that can determin it being unwanted!
...
There is but one rational way to stop spam. Stop it from existing. Disallow the ability for spam to be sent in the first place. This is the only way that 100% of spam can be stopped.

It's that simple.>>>>

Care to tell me how you will reach this simple goal? I mean, this is realy something noone had ever thought of !

Is this your sollution:
<<<<Recently in America we have a new number we can call. When we call it and enter OUR phone number, it puts our number on a national DO NOT CALL LIST.

Any telemarketers must send their number database through this to make sure a number on their list has not been entered.

If it has, and they call it................they have hell to pay.

I think that it makes PERFECT sense to do this same thing for:

1. physical addresses
2. email addresses>>>>

If so, then you absolutely don't know what you are talking about. Since one of the biggest problems is tracking down spammers because they can't be identifyed. Email headers can be spoofed. Legit SMTP servers can be abused by hackers to send out mail etc etc.

And who would be going after these offending spammers? E-mail is kinda of a global phenomena and i don't think the Belgan police would be inclined to arrest me if i would send you an unsollicited mail. Or maybe you've dreamt up an international taskforce that will fight spam :rolleyes:


I'm still waiting to read about your bulletproof spam-protection you used last year.

MysteryMan, I'm rather disappointed and not at all convinced by your answer. Frankly, for me it seems you don't know what you are talking about, and I highly doubt that you actually have that mega-ultra-whizbang system of spam protection you wrote about.

Why don't you lay hard facts on the desk so we can examine them? Yet you digress by telling us a nice story about the do-not-call list, and in the end your post looks like you're looking for a solution, instead of having and using an existing one.

I don't think there's much sense debating the points of your last message, because they do not contribute anything new to the discussion.

Originally posted by mordred
MysteryMan, I'm rather disappointed and not at all convinced by your answer.

That's a very polite version of what I was thinking.
MysteryMan: It is now (and has been for a while) a Federal offence to send unsolicited emails in Australia. This legislation has done nothing. Take this as a real world example, instead of passing it off.
I have 3 email accounts that I use daily, NONE of which have ever received a single spam. I don't put my email address where it's not necessary, and if I'm putting it in an html page, I use unicode.

Originally posted by mindlessLemming
That's a very polite version of what I was thinking. :thumbsup:

Sadly enough we won't be hearing this glorious anti-spam method. MysteryMan won't be joining us again.

Originally posted by oracleguy
Sadly enough we won't be hearing this glorious anti-spam method. MysteryMan won't be joining us again.
Sorry, I don't understand. Care to explain? :confused:

Hi guys:
I think this thread has run its course, so I'm closing it. Regarding MysteryMan, this is an account under review between the mods and I.