Spam Reduction

I received this news alert today from GigaLaw:

“The volume of junk e-mail sent worldwide plummeted after a Web hosting firm identified by the computer security community as a major host of organizations engaged in spam activity was taken offline.  Experts say the precipitous drop-off in spam comes from Internet providers unplugging McColo Corp., a hosting provider in Northern California that was the home base for machines responsible for coordinating the sending of roughly 75 percent of all spam each day.”

75% of spam!?  Here’s the link to The Washington Post story that prompted the GigaLaw alert.  It doesn’t answer the questions hiding in GigaLaw’s use of the passive voice, such as who took McColo Corp. offline?  On what authority?

Another Post story answers some of those questions:  two “Internet Providers”–Global Crossing and Hurricane Electric–pulled McColo’s plug on Tuesday.  Why Tuesday?  A spokesman for Hurricane Electric said “We looked into it a bit, saw the size and scope of the problem [ was] reporting and said ‘Holy cow!’ Within the hour we had terminated all of our connections to them.  It appears Hurricane Electric acted unilaterally, although McColo has been on Internet security companies’ watch lists for some time. Why Tuesday and not, say, last month or last year?  The timing is unclear.  McColo reportedly was “hosting at least 40 different child pornography Web sites or sites that collect payment for the illicit content.”

Ironically, shutting down McColo may make it harder to track the illegal activity it hosts.  The Post quotes a security consultant:  “”Everything will just be more spread out and harder to mitigate . . . We rather like knowing where the bad activity is coming from, so protecting our networks is easier.”

5 thoughts on “Spam Reduction”

  1. 75% is an absurd amount. But from an end user perspective, it doesn’t really matter to me much as I have so many spam filters in place that I rarely get any spam at all. Though it is interesting to see how much web content is actually spam. I wonder what the next 10 years will be like.

  2. About the comment saying; “everything will all just be more spread out and harder to mitigate…” I see the point that they could better monitor and protect their networks, but if they can only do this with the source that they are familiar with, why wouldn’t eliminating that source be better for them? They would still have the same amount of uncertainty to the other spam providers, just less the huge provider that got shut down. If anything, I feel like this could cut costs for them and they won’t have to account for this particular spam.

  3. I thought Macs were impervious to pop-up spam. I found out I was wrong last week.

    If there’s a will, there’s a way. Just like how natural viruses will evolve resistance to antibiotics we come up with, so will spam in its various forms.

  4. I’ve been exploring for a bit for any high-quality articles
    or blog posts on this kind of space . Exploring
    in Yahoo I at last stumbled upon this web site. Studying this information So i am satisfied to convey that I have a very good uncanny feeling I
    found out exactly what I needed. I such a lot without a doubt will
    make certain to do not put out of your mind this
    website and give it a look regularly.

  5. My brother suggested I would possibly like this website. He used to be
    totally right. This put up actually made my day. You can not believe
    just how a lot time I had spent for this information! Thank you!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *