http://www.pcquest.com/content/search/showarticle1.asp?

arid=73453&mode=disp

How to Win the War Against Spam

70% of all e-mail is spam. Newsletters you did not sign up for, porn and medicines you don't want, phishing attacks, worm mail and random marketing messages. All of it needs to be stopped before it enters your network. ut how! Thursday, August 04, 2005 Spam is universally agreed to be unsolicited bulk e-mail. This mail may or may not be of a commercial nature. The usual purpose of sending out such mail is for marketing. One of the more recent uses of spam is using it for disinformation. As an extreme case, it can become a tool for corporate or political misinformation. Spam could also be a potential weapon in cyberwarfare. Sometimes, spam has more sinister purposes-of bringing down mail servers and networks by bombarding them with useless messages. This is also called mail bombing but the messages sent are spam. Or it could be used in phishing attacks or similar scams. Though not relevant to this story, the word spam has two other meanings. One is the attempt by search engine optimi!ation operators "S#Os$ to gain higher search-engine rankings by repeatedly submitting the same content with variously disguised %&'s. The other and original meaning has to do with a brand of canned pork, from (ormel stands for Shoulder of )ork And (am . Identifying spam The basic foundation of the idea that you can eliminate spam comes from the fact that spam is identifiable. *urther, a mere +,, operators around the world are responsible for about -,. of the spam that lands in your mailboxes. And every one of them in known and documented. /ut if all this is true, how come these operators are still around0 1hat they do is register to a set of domains, buy 2S) services to spam from, and send out millions of e-mail in about three months time.

Then they set up another set of domains and 3ump to a different set of 2S)s. At a time, each of them have do!ens of domains and aliases running. The best part seems to be that they need not even be in the same area as their 2S) and the 2S) is either clueless about the whole thing or chooses to turn a blind eye to what s going on. Anti-spam measures So, what are the resources and solutions available to you to eliminate spam0 1e have identified a few key concepts and solutions for you that are both easy to implement and are not very costly either. Anti-spam arsenal can be broadly classified into three categories-prevention techni4ues that avoid your addresses getting onto a mailing list, solutions that can help you deal with any spam that arrives and resources you can turn to for further research or help. One way to win the war against spam is to avoid getting it altogether. To do this, your 2T policy must strongly state and force implementation of a few simple mechanisms. These are nothing new and have been known and well-documented from the early days of spam. This first of these is5 never provide your e-mail addresses on a public 1eb page . A 1eb page can be hosted on a website, a forum or a newsgroup. (umans no longer need to physically harvest addresses from a 1eb page. Automated programs called bots roam the 1eb, pulling pages and scanning them for e-mail address like patterns. These are logged into mailing lists that are then exchanged with other spam operators. Thus, your biggest problem is eliminated if these bots don t get hold of your e-mail address. There are situations when you would want someone to read a 1eb page to contact you. 1eb forms that allow the visitor to write back to you is the best way, since the recipient s address is never revealed. Solutions All ma3or mail servers have vendor-provided or third-party applications that filter out the spam. *or #xchange, there is Service )ack 6 "on the )78#ssential 79$, besides applications from (examail, :*2 ;ail#ssentials, 7loudmark and /it9efender among others. 9omino has "again$ /it9efender, Spam#raser and ;ail*lower. SpamAssassin supports procmail, sendmail, )ostfix and 4mail among others. There are appliances like the 2ron)ort 76, "see review in this issue$ that speciali!e in mail filtering. There is software that work with the ma3or mail servers. <otable among these are Symantec /right;ail AntiSpam, <orton AntiSpam and ;essage'abs AntiSpam =.,. An 2ndian solution, Spam>adoo claims to stop spammers by locking your e-mail address "we haven t tested it yet$. Spam>adoo also provides virtual e-mail addresses that you can use to subscribe to newsletters or use for temporary purposes.

These addresses can be monitored or even turned off when their need is over. The ;essage'abs hosted service claims 2s a lot of your mail is not reaching the recipients0 The reason could be that they are bounced as spam, because of previous spam activity. )u!!led0 (ead over to a blocklist and 4uery this 2) address. 7hances are that you ll find it listed there. Sometimes, your company may do legitimate mailing. <ow, if a significant number of your mail recipients report such mail as spam to one of the blocklists, the outgoing 2) address"es$ start getting blocked by mail servers. A lot of times, you as the 2T department are not aware of such mailing. Therefore, it becomes more critical that you check the listings periodically to ensure you aren t listed. 2f you are, when you take corrective action, you are removed . 1hen you buy your 2) address, check if it is listed in a block list. 2f it is, your 2S) must get the address removed. This brings us to a new issue. (ow cooperative is your 2S) in getting your spam problems solved0 As we said earlier, the 2S) has a crucial role to play in the war against spam? &emember that if they are allowing spammers to freely operate out of their network, they maynot act to solve your spam problems. Krishna Kumar and Sujay V Sarma

http://www.pcquest.com/content/search/showarticle1.asp?arid=73454&mode=disp

Top spammer
Thursday, August 04, 2005 The &O@SO "&egister of @nown Spamming Operations$ is a list of the +,, top operators in the world, who are estimated to contribute about -,. of all spam. One of the criteria for being listed in the &O@SO is that at least three 2S)s should have previously terminated the operator for spamming. Three 2ndians figure in the &O@SO list, maintained by Spam(aus.org. 1e met up with one of them, Somnath /harti.

/harti, an ;Sc graduate from 22T 9elhi runs an 2T firm ;adgen solutions based in 9elhi. The Spamhaus case against /harti is that he is spamming on behalf of a company called Topsites ''7. Two 2S) s-#stelcom based in :urgaon and S&2'&): in 9elhi, host Somnath /harti in 2ndia. Of these, we contacted #stelcom, as #stelcom had more 2) addresses listed in the &O@SO. According to Somnath, he got listed in the &O@SO after 7onrad 'ongmore, an editor at the Open 9irectory )ro3ect and the webmaster of dynamoo ran a story on him " http5AAwww.dynamoo.comAdiaryAtopsitesBtopsite!us.htm $. Says /harti, C#ach of the e-mail which we send does respect all the laws laid out for business communication through e-mail like

7oming from a valid 2) address Dalid reply-to address 7ontents are purely business in nature, ie, it s <OT Diagra or porn, etc. 7arries a functional unsubscribing link which when once used no e-mail is ever sent again on that address. There is a facility of unsubscribing the domain name itself after which no e-mail is sent at any address of that domain. This is strictly observed and practiced. 7arries a physical address in %SA, ie, a local contactable and traceable address 1e have customer support working +=xE which answers all customer 4ueries within += hours. 1e are contactable by phone, online chat and e-mailF.

Spam(aus, meanwhile, states GThe %SA s 7A<-S)A; Act merely outlaws the sending of spam with false or misleading sender information "and other specified conditions$. That in no way makes the sending of non-forged spam O@. <or does 7A<-S)A; override anti-spam filter policies. 7A<-S)A; specifically permits networks "including 2S)s$ to prohibit spam per their own policiesF. 2n our interactions with #stelcom "/ra3esh >ain, Dice )resident$, what emerged was that they had taken up the issue with ;r /harti, who in turn had assured them that he was not spamming. 2t did not take too much effort to figure out that /harti had been sued in the 7alifornia Superior court for spamming by 9an /alsam. 1e established contact with Timothy 1alton, /alsam s attorney and here is what he had to say. GThe court record contains a declaration 2 made under penalty of per3ury on September -, +,,=5 C9irectories ''7, Topsites, ''7, )aperless ;ail, 2nc. )aul Aunger, Somnath /harti and 9avid <ale have agreed to use only confirmed optin e-mail addresses when sending commercial messages and have further

agreed to pay )laintiff *ive Thousand 9ollars "HI,,,,$ in damages.C ;ost settlements are out of court. 2n this particular case, however, the 3udge had to approve the settlement. %pon application, the 3udge dismissed the defendants and they agreed to pay.F 2n his defense, /harti claims that defending the case in the %SA would have been far more costlier than settling it and that that is why he chose to settle. 2n our meetings, Somnath /harti and #stelcom claimed that they were in touch with Spam(aus but Spam(aus was extremely slow in taking action. Our experience with other 2S)s trying to get their S/' listings removed was 4uite on the contrary. Spam(aus acts fairly fast. To cross check, we contacted Spamhaus, and they denied that either Somnath or #stelcom had contacted them. (ere is what Steve 'inford, 7#O of Spamhaus had to say about the matter. GAs far as 2 can tell we have never been contacted by either Somnath /harti or estelcom.com. (owever, there would be no point in Somnath /harti contacting us, unless he wants to tell us that he has stopped spamming, as we do not remove any records simply because the spammer asks us to. 2f Somnath /harti s 2S), #stelcom, contacts us to say that spamming is Cnot illegalC in 2ndia and therefore #stelcom will not terminate Somnath /harti, then we would of course not remove any listing-as we do not care if spam is legal or not. 2n fact if an 2S) in any country tried to tell us that spamming is Cnot illegalC as an excuse to keep selling service to spammers, we would consider the 2S) to be knowingly aiding a spam operation and we would warn the 2S) that if he continues assisting the spam operation then we will consider the 2S) and the spam operation to be in business together and we will list the 2S)F.

http://www.pcquest.com/content/search/showarticle1.asp?arid=73455&mode=disp

!an you legally fight spam

"odney # "yder leads $reconcept, a full ser%ice corporate law firm Thursday, August 04, 2005 %nder 2ndian law, what recourse does a citi!en have against spam0 2n order to understand the legal position on spam, it is important to examine the implications of unsolicited commercial email. The "ultural position Spam "multiple unsolicited copies of 3unk Jusually commercialK e-mail$ has long been seen as a violation of neti4uette. 1here does the law step in at this stage0 #arly spam cases in the %nited States and 7anada were tried under legal heads such as nuisance, trespass and privacy. There are solutions under 2ndian law which evolve from nuisance and trespass. 2n 7ompuServe, 2nc. vs 7yber )romotions, 2nc, 7ivil Action <o. 7+-LM-6,E, JS.9. Ohio T.&.O. entered October +-, 6LLMK, in the suit that 7ompuServe bought against 7yber )romotions, the court listed the possible ingredients of spam related violations as, trademarkAservice mark infringement, unfair competition, deceptive trade practices, conversion or trespass to personal property and nuisance, un3ust enrichment, breach of contract and fraud. 7ompuServe subscribers were charged for the amount of time spent online and subscribers found themselves wasting time accessing, reading and deleting unwanted mail.

The battle lines

Whether your mail ser er is in!campus or with an "#$% spam must stop ri&ht 'e(ore or ne er reach it. )ail relays should ne er 'e le(t open. "( they are% spam has an easy route to the "nternet. *our "#$ should ta+e steps to pre ent routin& spam to you. ,he (inal de(ense is your anti!spam solution on your mail ser er. $ast this% the 'attle is lost and spam &ets deli ered. #o don-t plan on (i&htin& spam at the user-s mail'o.. /e(ore settin& up your mail ser er% e aluate what ser er protection options are there. The battle plan

0e er pu'lish your e!mail addresses on pu'lic we'sites. 1se We'!'ased (orms instead o( -mailto:- lin+s to recei e messa&es on your site. )a+e sure ac+nowled&ement and acation messa&es are tri&&ered a(ter spam (ilterin& has happened. 2o not automatically pro ide the new contact person to any mailer when a user lea es the or&ani3ation. "mplement anti!spam technolo&ies such as 2omain4eys% #ender "2 or 5air167. *ou should also implement anti!spam solutions.

$eriodically chec+ spam and 'lac+list data'ases to see i( your "$ addresses are listed there and act accordin&ly to &et them remo ed. #er er!side implementation o( anti!spam measures is a must. "nsist that your "#$ implements ro'ust anti!spam measures and (ollow up re&ularly with it on the issue. 2o not 'ounce spam. ,he sender id is usually (or&ed.

Spam as trespass 2n an action brought by an 2nternet service provider arising from bulk e-mail ads sent in violation of the provider s terms of use, a federal court found disputed issues of fact and denied summary 3udgment. America Online 2nc. vs <ational (ealth 9iscount, 2nc. "<.9. 2owa +,,,$ 77( Advertising 'aw :uide. M,,+N+, 6+6 *. Supp. +d. 6+II. The 2S), America Online, alleged that the transmission of the e-mail violated both the federal 7omputer *raud and Abuse Act "7*AA$ and the Dirginia 7omputer 7rimes Act "77A$, and constituted common law trespass. Several elements of a 7*AA claim were met5 the e-mailers accessed the 2S) s computers by sending the messagesO exceeded authori!ed access because the 2S) s terms of service barred spamO and obtained information from the 2S) s customers as a result of the spam from the 2S) s computers. (owever, the 2S) was denied summary 3udgment because it had not shown that it had sustained the damages re4uired by statute "at least HI,,,,$ to establish a claim. 1ith respect to the 77A claims, the e-mailers clearly violated the statute by using a computer network without authority and with the intent of converting the property of another. The e-mailers conduct also constituted trespass to chattels under the law of Dirginia, where the 2S) s computers were located. (owever, the 2S) was denied summary 3udgment on these claims because it was disputed whether the e-mailers were acting under the defendant s control and were therefore its agents. The court held that the defendant could not be vicariously liable for the e-mailers conduct if they were independent contractors. The element of de"eption :reater concern arises when mass e-mailers resort to disguising their identity Jas spammersK using technology and often deliberately assume third party identity as in the case of spoofing. <ow the element of deception has been introduced. Once fraud or deception comes into the picture, the relevant provisions of the 2ndian )enal 7ode, 6-M, Jthe 2)7K can come to the aid of the besieged party. www.spamhaus.org maintains a list of &$ addresses that are generating spam. 'ome of them use &ndian &'$s. (an an &ndian &'$ terminate a customer for spamming! $articularly, can the customer be terminated for being listed in international spammer lists like www. spamhaus.org!

Fighting spam in court

2an /alsam is a (amiliar name in the anti!spam circles. ,his 6ali(ornia resident has (iled% and so (ar won twenty suits a&ainst spammers. 8ere is what 2an told $69uest a'out spam and the law. :;ood laws are important. ,he 1# 5ederal 6<0!#$<) <ct is 0=, a &ood law% (or a ariety o( reasons that you can read on my we'site% www.2an8ates#pam.com. 7n(orcement is equally as important as the laws themsel es. With my lawsuits% in small claims and superior court% " name the spammers and the principals (or whom they ad ertise. 1ltimately% the principals are responsi'le (or the actions o( their ad ertisin& a&ents% and hope(ully namin& them in the lawsuits will ma+e them 1> rethin+ their ad ertisin& strate&ies and cut o(( the spammers% and ?> attempt to recoup dama&es (rom the spammers% most o( whom are iolatin& their contracts with the ad ertisers 'y sendin& unlaw(ul spam@. Pes. *irst, ideally provisions relating to spam and the unlawful invasion of privacy should be made part of the 2S)s policy. 2t is, for instance, part of DS<' s policy. The 2S) should reserve the right to remove any person or entity sending unsolicited commercial e-mail. 2n the %S, spam is not included in the *irst Amendment Jfreedom of speech and more?K, it is 4uite clear that while commercial speech is protected under the 7onstitution Junder Article 6LK, it will not include spam. Also, if the 2S) does not terminate links or services to the alleged spammer or conduct due diligence, it may be liable for contributory negligence. What other a"tion "an the IS# ta$e against the spammer 2t depends on the nature of the content being sent a spammed message and the extent to which it violates a subscriber s privacy. *or instance, if the owners of a cinema hall spam the general public with regard to discounts on movie tickets it may be serious but perhaps not as serious as the new hospital in town spamming patients on their new clinic for the treatment of diabetes. Spam law in many countries, such as the %S is often used with other specific privacy laws such as the :ramm-'each-/liley Act Jfor financial transactionsK. What is the lia%ility of an IS# who hosts a spammer %nder the present scenario, an 2S) who hosts a spammer knowingly can be prosecuted for contributing to the spamming activity and thus be liable for nuisance, trespass and the unlawful invasion of privacy.

(owever, if the 2S) has conducted due diligence and does not have knowledge of the spamming activity or if the existence of such activity has not been brought to his attention then the 2S) will not be liable. What re"ourse does a "iti&en ha'e against an IS# for $nowingly hosting a spammer An action under tort law for nuisance, trespass and the unlawful invasion of privacy. 2nterestingly, an 2S) can also sue a spammer for using its services for spam under the same legal principles.