FC: Rich Kulawiec's Draconian idea to rid the Net of spam, forever

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Sat May 10 2003 - 17:07:43 PDT

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: Go to emergency room, get narced out by FBI doctor?"

    ---
    
    Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 11:52:05 -0400
    From: Rich Kulawiec <rskat_private>
    To: declanat_private
    Subject: Re-engineering mail: a nice idea, but won't stop spam
    
    [ Declan: for politech, if you deem fit/appropriate/etc. ---Rsk ]
    
    I have now seen at least half a dozen different proposals on how the
    entire Internet's mail system should be changed in order to stop spam and
    (as a secondary goal) stop malware like worms and viruses. [1]
    
    I *do* think that the mail system is due for an overhaul.  Maybe even
    overdue.  We know lots of things about how mail works or doesn't work
    that we didn't know two decades ago; we should apply that knowledge.
    
    But I don't think we should allow the nature and schedule of that overhaul
    to be dictated by spammers.  It's certainly not the most desirable option
    and it WON'T stop spamming, regardless of the many claims that it will.
    
    Why not?  Because (some) spammers have already demonstrated great
    ingenuity.  They will find a way to abuse whatever's put in place, and/or
    they'll shift to other protocols and spam using those -- so at *best*,
    and even this is quite a bit to hope for, it will force them off SMTP
    and onto something else.  It will not solve the problem.  It will only
    move it around. [2]
    
    The only way to stop spamming is remove spammers from the Internet,
    permanently.  And to make it clear that anyone allowing them to connect
    again will be quickly and completely shunned by the rest of the 'net. [3]
    
    But none of these re-engineering efforts do that.  And so they miss
    the point: if the spammers are made to go away, the problem goes away.
    And nothing BUT making the spammers go away will make the problem go away.
    
    This doesn't happen by inventing challenge-response mail systems or
    trusted authorities or bureaucracy or HTML (spit) mail or crypto certs
    or any of the other ideas that have been suggested as part of a new and
    better way of moving mail around.  Yes, it's all very nice, and some of
    it may be a darn good idea, but it only treats the SYMPTOMS of spam and
    not the DISEASE.
    
    The DISEASE is treatable only at its source; and it's treatable only by
    disconnecting spammers from the Internet.  Permanently.
    
    There is no technical reason why this can't be made to (mostly) happen.
    
    What is missing here is not something technical [4], which is why
    technical solutions won't work.  What's missing here is the WILL to
    solve the problem and, along with it, the WILL to endure the fallout:
    the complaints, the loss of revenue, the revenge attacks, the frivolous
    lawsuits, etc.
    
    That will can't be supplied just by changing the way mail works.
    
    It either has to come from within -- as it does in people who know that
    nuking spammers on sight is the Right Thing to do -- or without -- as in
    people who don't know that, but who are being dragged to the realization
    that hosting spamers -> getting blacklisted -> Bad Thing.
    
    I think we would all prefer to live in a world where ISPs are run by
    the first group of people.  Luckily, there are some of them and their
    efforts go largely under-appreciated because they don't bring themselves
    to our attention.  To them, I say: you rock.  May your mallet always
    hit its target and may your BOFH badge never tarnish.
    
    However, as we know, there are a lot of ISPs run by the second group of
    people, and they need to have it explained to them (via DNSBLs and the
    like) that their conduct, specifically their continued provision of spam
    support services, is unacceptable to the Internet community
    
    But "what we have here...is a failure to communicate."  We have, to this
    point, made it somewhat clear that some of our networks will not accept
    SMTP traffic from some parts of spam-friendly networks.  This message
    is fine, as far as it goes, but it is not the message that spam-friendly
    networks need to hear.
    
    What they need to hear is "Your know that AUP/TOS you have?  The one
    you never enforce?  Well, here is our AUP/TOS:  a LOT of us are going
    to drop every packet you send on the floor until you demonstrate that
    you are worthy to participate in the Internet community by removing ALL
    your spammers.  Meanwhile, enjoy your intranet.  Do let us know when
    you're done cleaning it up.  Goodbye.  <click>"
    
    *Should* this be necessary?  Of course not.  It's draconian even by
    my standards.  But I think that delivering an ultimatum to a couple of
    select ISPs -- as in "remove your spammers or face the Internet Death
    Penalty" -- is probably the only way to get through to some of them.
    This is because it is a message written in a language they understand
    (maybe the ONLY language they understand): money.
    
    I think it will work.  If nothing else it'll herd the spammers into a
    successively smaller number of networks.  (We have already seen some
    of this happening because of DNBSLs.)  And thanks to the wonderful
    documentation which has already been compiled by folks like ROKSO and
    and CluelessMailers, we already know who most of the major spammers are
    and where to find them.
    
    If it works, it will return mail to the nicely usable state that it
    was in, say, ten years ago.  We will no doubt all enjoy the relative
    peace and quiet -- and we will be able to debate a new mail architecture
    for the Internet without being distracted so badly by the spam issue.
    
    It it doesn't work, fine, I was wrong.
    
    But I think it's a much more effective avenue to pursue -- and
    it's certainly much faster [5] than trying to get through all the
    wrangling over a new mail protocol/architecture, the development of
    production-quality code, the deployment and migration [6] , etc.
    
    ---Rsk
    
    [1] As to worms and viruses: breaking the addiction to M$ solves most
    of that.  Oh, no doubt if M$ were wiped off the face of the earth (oh
    happy day!  may I live to see it) malware authors would turn to MacOS
    and OpenBSD and Linux and whatnot, but they will find far less fertile
    ground there.  This doesn't require re-engineering mail either: it only
    requires getting people to switch to professional-quality operating
    systems, of which there are now quite a few to suit every need, budget,
    and hardware platform.
    
    [2] This has already happened.  Spammers moved en masse off NNTP and onto
    SMTP when the web made it possible for them to spam using protocol A and
    deliver their payload via protocol B.  They bought themselves years of
    uninterrupted service by doing it, too, until it finally became clear
    that the ISP providing service via B was just as culpable as the one
    providing service via A.
    
    [3] That will probably require much more severe blacklisting that has been
    used so far: think SPEWS++: blocking all IP traffic and with mandatory
    penalty periods equal to the length of time spammers were allowed
    to connect.  Or something like that.  So far, out of everything I've
    seen -- from ROKSO to Wirehub!, from SpamCop to monkeys.com, THE single
    most effective tool in getting spammers removed -- even temporarily --
    has been SPEWS.  This doesn't mean that I like everything about SPEWS.
    I simply recognize that it seems to work better than anything else at
    getting spam-friendly ISPs to remove their spammers.
    
    [4] Nor will legal solutions, for the most part.  Two of many reasons
    why are (a) this problem crosses jurisdictions and (b) spam is not yet
    correctly recognized as a distributed denial-of-service attack.
    
    [5] Even if The Perfect Mail Architecture were proposed tomorrow,
    it would still take time -- a lot of time -- to develop code and get
    it widely deployed.  Meanwhile, spam is getting exponentially worse.
    These are not compatible situations.
    
    [6] Those of you who recall the Usenet migration of the mid-80's know
    what a massive effort that was.  And it had the advantages of a somewhat
    centralized authority (the "backbone"), a much less-used system, a much
    more clueful administrative community, and a much smaller network.
    
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
    You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
    This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
    Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 10 2003 - 18:16:35 PDT