Spam

The term **spam** refers to unsolicited electronic mail or junk newsgroup postings. Similarly, **spamming** refers to the act of sending identical unsolicited messages to a large group of e-mail addresses. It is thus unwanted by those who receive such messages. Spam is usually created by a **spammer**, one who creates a disguise by stealing someone else’s identity. In today’s world of technology, the internet is used by many if not all members of society. Spamming, the act of sending an unsolicited message, is carried out by many perpetrators in society. =What is Spam?=

toc Each day, internet users in the tens of millions open their inbox to a flurry of unsolicited mass electronic mailings known as spam, bringing with them a proliferation of commercial advertising, promises of getting rich, or illegitimate services, all aimed at extracting users’ money. Lists of targeted e-mail addresses are acquired in a number of ways, usually from web page databases and Usenet. According to ‘Spam Filter Review’ (http://www.spamreviewfilter.com) at any given moment, spam accounts for an astounding 40% of e-mail traffic on the internet. According to Ferrera, Lichtenstein, Reder, Bird, and Schiano, “estimates are that each of us will receive spam over two thousand times this year and by 2006, over four thousand times” (Ferrera et al. 284, 2004). “Spam is the Internet’s version of junk mail, telemarketing calls during dinner, crank phone calls, and leaflets pasted around town, all rolled up into a single annoying electronic bundle” (Schwartz and Garfinkel 2005). To some, such e-mails are a mere annoyance and are dealt with by a few strokes of the delete key. This misses the point however that the sheer number of transmitted illicit e-mails is so great that they are causing significant economic and social consequences on a global scale. Spam has even evolved to other mediums of delivery. Now people are receiving spam through their cell phones. The escalating threats posed by spam have brought about international efforts by governments, global economic organizations, and the technology industry itself to control the problem. The first Spam e-mail was sent out twenty-five years ago. Gary Thuerk, a marketing manager of Digital Equipment, sent three hundred and ninety-seven e-mails describing Arpanet’s technology on the Internet. “There was negative reaction. But, on the other hand, a number of people contacted us for information,” Thuerk said (Paul Davidson, Jon & Swartz, 2003). Spam was a great way to sell products and distribute information that was cheap and effective to Internet users. The growth of Spam mail rose in the mid 1990’s when many new users went online (Gauntlett & Horsley, 266). Since then Spam has continued to increase despite the new laws and regulations put forward.

Spam Review Filter [online] Online at: [|http://www.spamreviewfilter.com]

Types of Spam:

 * 1) [|E-mail Spam]
 * 2) Blog Spam
 * 3) Forum Spam
 * 4) Internet Telephony Spam
 * 5) Messaging Spam
 * 6) Mobile Phone Spam
 * 7) Newsgroup Spam
 * 8) Spamdexing
 * 9) [|Usenet Spam]
 * 10) Wiki Spam

 E-mail spam consists of four categories (Schwartz and Garfinkel 2005):
 * 1) //Unsolicited commercial email// (UCE): an email message that you receive without asking for it that advertises a product or service (also called junk email)
 * 2) //Unsolicited bulk email// (UBE): email messages that are sent in bulk to thousands (or millions) of recipients
 * 3) //Make money fast// (MMF) messages: often come in the form of chain letters or multi-level marketing schemes and are messages that, for example, suggest you can get rich by sending money to the top name on a list, removing that name, adding your name to the bottom of the list, and forwarding the message to other people
 * 4) //Reputation attacks// are messages that appear to be sent from one person or organization, but are actually sent from another, i.e. they involve identity theft as one pretends to be another individual, also known as //spoofing//, which is the act of "disguising an e-mail to make it appear it was mailed from an address different from the one from which it was actually mailed, without the permission of the user of the actual "spoofed address" (Ferrera et al. 286)

 Usenet spam includes six categories (Schwartz and Garfinkel 2005):
 * 1) Excessive //multi-posting// (EMP): an identical news article posted individually to many newsgroups
 * 2) //Excessive cross-posting// (ECP): news articles cross-posted to many newsgroups
 * 3) //Spew:// occurs when a misconfigured news program posts the same article to the same newsgroup repeatedly
 * 4) //Off-topic postings:// news articles with inappropriate content for the newsgroup in which they appear
 * 5) //Binaries:// news articles containing encoded binary files, such as image files, programs, video, or music samples
 * 6) C//ommercial postings:// news articles advertising a product or service for sale

=Costs and Benefits of Spam=

Economic Costs
The economic arguments against spam are numerous. First is the dramatic impact that spam has on the economies of developed nations. For example, according to a recent study by Goodmail Systems (http://www.goodmail.com), spam costs the United States’ economy over $25 billion per year. After a study of over eighty Fortune 500 companies, Nucleus Research, an independent technology research company, found that the average employee receives over 7000 unsolicited junk e-mails per year, costing businesses 3.1% in lost productivity (Nucleus Research). In addition to reduced productivity, spam also causes economic losses by overloading industry’s computing resources, clogging e-mail boxes, defrauding recipients, and creating employee distractions. Second, the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) has identified spam as an even more serious economic threat to developing countries because their resources are more scare, more costly, and they cannot afford skilled administrators for spam-filtering and network security. (Spam Issues In Developing Countries- OECD May 26, 2005). Finally, spam is a serious problem because it affects all online users. Since spam campaigns are relatively inexpensive to operate, the cost of such unsolicited mailings is borne largely by the recipient. Lastly, recipients must pay high costs. For example, “the estimated annual cost to consumers and businesses is eight to ten billion dollars” (Online Advertising). “These costs stem from: decreased productivity, time needed to delete unwanted e-mail messages, server crashes, higher cost of Internet access, disk space charges, connect time, increased costs for ISPs to transmit spam are passed along to subscribers” (Online Advertising).

Economic Benefits
Moreover, spam has economic benefits as well. The spammer gains economic benefits, however the recipients of spam experience high costs as mentioned above. It is generally cheaper and easier to send email advertisements than hardcopy advertisements. “An advertisement in a newspaper can cost anywhere from $24 for a typical classified ad to $25,000 for a full-page advertisement in a major newspaper” (Schwartz and Garfinkel 2005). Whereas, “with ISPs offering ‘unlimited’ dial-up access to the Internet for $20 per month or less, and a dedicated phone line costing another $15, a spammer can send roughly 10,000 email messages for a penny” (Schwartz and Garfinkel 2005). Thus, electronic advertising is an extremely cheap way to reach an audience and creates benefits for spammers.

Social Costs
Spam not only stands as a serious economic threat but has many negative social consequences as well. Spam weakens consumer’s trust of online services and aids in the spread of malicious computer viruses. Spam is also frequently used as a vehicle to conduct fraudulent and criminal activity. Perhaps the most infamous scam resulting from spam is the ‘Nigerian Advance Fee Scheme’. Authorities believe that since its conception, this scheme has illegally profited by hundreds of millions of dollars, and the figures are continuing to grow. This widespread scam operates by luring potential victims with offers of financial commissions by making their bank accounts available for overseas deposits. Some scam-artists have gone so far as to set up mock meetings between the intended victims and the scam-artists posing as government officials. The illicit organizations profit by convincing the user-victim to pay over large sums of money to complete the transaction.

Christine Wade, who works as Director of Consumer Regulation Enforcement at the United Kingdom ‘Office of Fair Trade’ and is president of the ‘The International Consumer Protection and Enforcement Network’, has noted that “spam gets in the way of legitimate e-commerce and is often a vehicle for scams.” The elderly are seen to be most impacted by fraud since they are less aware of the global threat and often times are less suspicious of deceptive claims made by spammers. This is a serious problem since the aged population have little means to reclaim lost and badly needed income.

Bizeurope Resources: Worldwide Sweep for Internet Scams. [online] Online at: http://www.bizeurope.com/spam_scams.html

Furthermore, spam affects society in several other ways as well. “Unwanted postings destroy the community spirit on which Usenet is based” (Schwartz and Garfinkel 2005). This is due to the fact that “when newsgroups are swamped with spam, fewer people read the groups, and they are less effective as a resource for discussion, problem solving, and information dissemination” (Schwartz and Garfinkel 2005). “Some unwanted postings, like chain letter pyramid schemes, are illegal in themselves and spam makes it easy for scam artists and hucksters to prey on some of the most vulnerable members of society” (Schwartz and Garfinkel 2005). Furthermore, “much spam is simply offensive to the recipients” (Schwartz and Garfinkel 2005). For example, “on July 21, 1997, a spammer appropriated CNN Interactive’s CNN Plus mailing list and sent pornographic email to thousands of CNN customers. The incident was offensive to many of the subscribers and a terrible embarrassment to CNN” (Schwartz and Garfinkel 2005).

=Solutions=

As problems with the application of spam increase, policies in cyberspace become apparent. Inevitably there are calls for new laws on local, state, national and even international levels. Several states in the United States have passed laws regulating spam. In addition to top-down regulation through government imposed laws, regulating activity in cyberspace is also attempted through what is sometimes referred to as a //bottom-up approach//. The bottom-up approach involves individual actors attempting to shape behavior through promotion of a code of conduct or "netiquette" or through social and monetary pressures with vehicles such as boycotts, but not through government enacted laws (**US anti-spam law fails to bite).**

TCPA Act:
Before the advent of the Internet other forms of technology were used as a means of communicating. Telephones in particular were and still are used by many as a way to communicate. Not too long ago telemarketing was used by many companies to reach potential consumers directly at their homes. Telemarketing became a form of spam as many individuals did not want such phone calls by third parties. Thus, existing laws have been used to attempt to control spam over last five years in the U.S. and Canada. The “Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)” was passed on December 20, 1991 in response to the complaints from outraged constituents who were receiving annoying telephone calls from telemarketers, referred to as “telephone terrorism” (Batista 234, 2003). The TCPA was enacted “to protect the privacy interests of residential telephone subscribers by placing restrictions on unsolicited, automated telephone calls to the home and facilitate interstate commerce by restricting certain uses of facsimile (fax) machines and automatic dialers” (qtd. in Batista 234, 2003).

CAN-SPAM Act:
The United States government has lead legislative efforts to control spam with the enactment of federal legislation known as the Can-SPAM in January 2004. The Act, also known as “Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003” was designed to reduce unsolicited mailings by establishing stringent rules governing mass electronic mailing. The CAN-SPAM Act’s requirements fall into five categories (Manishin and Joyce 2, 2004): The Act has a broad reach, affecting all internet marketers within the United States. Under the new Act, the content of a mailing must be labeled in the subject line and include “clear and conspicuous identification” that the mailing is an advertisement or solicitation – unless the recipient has given prior consent to receive such e-mails. Marketers must also provide the recipient with “clear and conspicuous” instructions on how to remove themselves from the mailing list in order to end further e-mails, instructions that must continue to function for 30 days after the e-mail has been sent. The Act also makes it illegal to sell the addresses of users who have requested removal from mailing lists, or to send mailings to any address acquired from an online website or service that has privacy policies stating that their e-mail addresses will not be shared with organizations which would use the addresses for commercial purposes. Marketers need also provide a valid physical postal address clearly displayed on all mailings, and all mailings must be sent from an authentic electronic mailing address. If a mailing is not clearly identified as advertisement or solicitation and a dispute arises concerning the presence of prior consent, it is left to the marketer to provide verifiable proof of prior consent which could serve as evidence in a courtroom. Recently there have been concerns expressed by “legitimate permission marketers” – or legitimate companies who send out mass electronic mailings to previous customers with their explicit permission. Such marketers are advised that they should use a ‘double-optin’ approach for adding e-mail addresses to mailing lists as opposed to the more commonly used ‘single-optin’ approach. This would require a marketer to send the subscriber an e-mail requesting confirmation that the address is valid and that the owner of the address has in fact requested subscription to the mailing list. Other rules include warning labels for sexually explicit content, and they forbid spammers from gaining unauthorized access to servers or using open relay servers to send or relay electronic mailings. Lastly, the Act specifies damages of $250 per message up to a $2 million cap, as penalties (Manishin and Joyce 3, 2004).
 * 1) False/Misleading Messages
 * 2) Functioning Return Address
 * 3) 10-Day Prohibition
 * 4) Disclosure Requirements
 * 5) Aggravated Violations

Florida Electronic Mail Communications Act:
In addition to U.S. Federal laws, states such as Florida have enacted legislation in order to combat spam. The Florida Electronic Mail Communications Act which took effect on July 1, 2004 bans the circulation of mass e-mails that contain false or misleading content, or that is sent from a false e-mail address and results in fines upon conviction. In Canada the Senate has proposed Bill S-15, 2004 cited as the Spam Control Act making it an offence to engage in specified electronic mailing abuses and subjects perpetrators to penalties upon conviction.

London Action Plan on International Spam Enforcement Collaboration:
There are also extensive international legislative efforts to fight spam. The United Kingdom Office of Fair Trade and the United States Federal Trade Commission have co-developed an effort to combat spam, named the ‘London Action Plan on International Spam Enforcement Collaboration’. The plan aims to encourage spam enforcement cooperation between countries and to effectively collaborate on new legislation, spam investigation, law enforcement, internet education, online fraud, dissemination of viruses, as well as encouraging communication between governments, telecommunication agencies and private institutions to discuss techniques available to track down spam violators and help bring legal cases against them. The London Plan was quickly adopted by 15 countries including Canada, and in June of 2005 was joined by China.

OECD:
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) which consists of 30 government agencies, has relationships with some 70 additional countries, and who’s purpose it the perpetuation of democracy and market economy, is also combating spam. In May of 2004 the OECD formed a team to manage the efforts of member countries government and business sector fight against spam. The goal of the OECD Spam Task Force will be similar to the London Action Pact, and will specifically deal with improving coordination between government agencies, encouraging technical measures used against spam, and facilitating international law enforcement. Current projects run by the OECD include developing network management solutions, reducing spam on other devices such as mobile phones, and improving relations with the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation as well as non-OECD government agencies as well.

First Amendment Center: The Right to Block Spam [online] Online at: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=15628

OECD: Task Force to Coordinate Fight against Spam [online] Online at: http://www.oecd.org/document/7/0,2340,en_2649_22555297_33656711_1_1_1_1,00.html

CAUCE:
In Canada, an organization known as CAUCE (The Canadian Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email) is trying to provide a solution to SPAM. CAUCE “is an all-volunteer organization created by to advocate the implementation of legislative solutions to the problem of spam, which was formed in 1999” (CAUCE Canada). This organization supports and works toward passage of legislation prohibiting unsolicited email advertisements. Many people believe that Canada’s Laws are ineffective and as a result CAUCE is trying to get the government to toughen penalties.

=Court Cases=

The first civil claim under Florida’s new Electronic Mail Communications Act was filed in April of 2005. Two Florida residents were accused of administering a campaign that sent over 65,000 unsolicited e-mails over a two year period which marketed illegitimate online businesses. The state claims the defendants used their mass e-mailing techniques to advertise over 75 websites engaged in illegal business activities, including “unauthorized sales of pharmaceuticals and cigarettes and services for illegal downloading of copyrighted movies”. Prosecutors commended Microsoft’s involvement in tracking down the alleged spammers, whom set up false e-mail accounts on its web-based e-mail service to help track the spammers campaigns. Microsoft currently has an advanced anti-spam force dedicated to tracking down and aiding in the prosecution of individuals involved in unsolicited mass electronic mailing, and have been involved in spam-related lawsuits in New York, Texas and Washington. Microsoft in turn commended Florida’s approach to combating spam. “We're convinced that strong actions like those being taken today by the Florida attorney general will help make illegal spam a thing of the past,” says Nancy Anderson, Microsoft's deputy general counsel. “We're happy to help and delighted this strong action is being taken to protect consumers.” The two men eventually settled the case and paid an undisclosed amount of fines surpassing their total sales from the spam campaign.

Another case heard at the US appeals court level interestingly dealt with spammers’ rights. In this case, White Buffalo, an Austin, Texas company promoted relationship-based Web sites by beginning a bulk e-mail campaign to all the university's e-mail addresses. In an effort to relieve their servers of the stress brought about by the flood of incoming spam from this website, the University blocked all White Buffalo Ventures internet addresses. White Buffalo Ventures then brought about a lawsuit against the University seeking a court injunction protecting what the dating service claimed was a right to send unsolicited mail that complied with the Can-Spam Act. White Buffalo Ventures also cited the First Amendment, which it claimed broadly limited a University’s capability to inhibit free speech. The 5th Circuit ruled against White Buffalo Ventures, refusing to overturn a previous trial judge's ruling which sided with the academy. Although three-judge panel concluded that the Can-Spam Act had never been intended to allow a government-run university to block commercial advertisements or solicitations, they unanimously agreed that the University did not violate federal law or the U.S. Constitution when they chose to filter out the mass electronic mailings.

In another infamous case, filed in 1996 long before much of the legislation of today was enacted, AOL blocked online marketers ‘Cyber Promotions’ from sending it’s users hundreds of thousands of unsolicited mass electronic mailings. Cyber Promotions brought AOL to court, contending that it had a First Amendment right - freedom of speech - to send unsolicited electronic mailings to AOL's customers. Cyber Promotions argued that the private online company AOL became a “state actor” by operating an exclusive public function – that is providing users with internet connectivity. AOL argued it had a constitutional right to bar Cyber Promotion’s unsolicited mail from being transmitted through its network. Since the facts were undisputed and the case relied on a question of law, AOL then filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted AOL’s motion, stating that although AOL was the equivalent of a private sector it could not be considered a “state actor” as Cyber Promotion contended. Although there was no question that AOL made its e-mail system open to the public, this was not enough to establish that AOL was operating an “exclusive public function” since its e-mail system was not an exercise of municipal power or an essential public service”. Therefore, AOL had a constitutional right to prevent Cyber Promotion’s unsolicited mail from being transmitted through its network and onto its members e-mail accounts.

ZD Net: First complaint filed under Can-Spam [online] Online at: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5201906.html

ZD Net: Court deals blow to dating-service spammer [online] Online at: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-5817431.html // State of Missouri v. American Blast Fax, Inc.// //(2002)// The case //State of Missouri v. American Blast Fax, Inc.// (2002) serves as an example for the TCPA. The State of Missouri sued American Blast Fax, Inc. and Fax.com, Inc. for violating statutory restrictions on unsolicited fax advertising. The defendant, American Blast Fax, Inc., is a Texas corporation, who provides fax advertising services in the state of Missouri. Defendant, Fax.com Inc., is a Delaware corporation doing business out of California and transmits advertisements from California to telephone facsimile machines in Missouri. “The Missouri Attorney General brought the instant cause of action, alleging that defendants violate the TCPA by sending fax advertisements when they have not received the express invitation or permission of persons to whom copies of advertisements are faxed” (Spam Laws 2006). “Defendants filed motions to dismiss arguing that the specific provision of the TCPA regarding unsolicited fax advertisements is unconstitutional” (Spam Laws 2006). The Court used the //Central Hudson// test because it “held that the test was the proper standard to be used in this cause of action to analyze the restrictions on commercial speech” (Spam Laws 2006). As a result, the Court found that “the provision prohibiting the sending of unsolicited advertisements is unconstitutional” (Spam Laws 2006). Therefore, even though the TCPA was enacted to protect consumers it failed to do so for some.

//Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Phoenix Avatar (2004)// The case //Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Phoenix Avatar// (2004) exemplifies the use of the CAN-SPAM Act. The defendant, Phoenix Avatar and its Detroit-based principals was charged by the FTC for sending illegal spam to sell bogus diet patches. “Consumers who wanted to purchase the products clicked on a hyperlink in the message and were connected to one of the defendants’ many Web sites” (FTC 2004). It is stated that “the defendants were earning nearly $100,000 per month from product sales” (FTC 2004). “The FTC alleges that the claims made for these diet patches are false and that the patches, which sell for $59.95, will have no effect at all” (FTC 2004). Firstly “the spammers hoped to obscure their identities by using innocent third party e-mail addresses in the “reply-to” or “from” fields of their spam - a practice known as spoofing” (FTC 2004). In addition, “when spam was undeliverable and bounced back, tens of thousands of undelivered e-mails bounced to unwitting third parties, sometimes getting the third parties mislabeled as spammers, themselves” (FTC 2004). Moreover, “the spam did not offer consumers the ability to opt-out of receiving future e-mail” (FTC 2004). Thus, “the deceptive claims violate the FTC Act and that the spoofing and failure to provide an opt-out capability violate provisions of the recently enacted CAN-SPAM Act” (FTC 2004). As a result, U.S. District Court Judge James F. Holderman entered a Temporary Restraining Order requiring an end to illegal spamming and deceptive product claims and freezing the defendants’ assets. Therefore, the CAN-SPAM Act has proven to be effective in some cases.

=Software Developers=

In recent years, software manufacturers and internet companies such as Microsoft, Yahoo, and America Online have aggressively implemented technological approaches to controlling spam. Such organizations have focused on developing systems to accurately verify the origin of e-mails in order to identify forged e-mail addresses since spammers will frequently modify the ‘header’ information in e-mails to create the appearance of a reputable source, such as a banking institution or government agency. Cisco and Yahoo have teamed up to develop an electronic mail system known as DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) that attaches a digital signature with all outgoing transmissions “With the prevalence of phishing in e-mail today, that can be a very valuable weapon” says Tripp Cox, Chief Technology Officer Earthlink – a large Internet Service Provide in the United States.

Although lawsuits filed by some of the web’s biggest players against junk e-mailers have united in the war against spam, there are few signs of collaboration in developing technology standards that could be more effective in slowing the deluge. America Online, Earthlink, Microsoft and Yahoo scored a major publicity coup early last year, when they launched their first joint legal assault against spammers. The suits claim that hundreds of unmanned defendants sent messages using false e-mail addresses a violation of the newly enacted federal Can-Spam act. Behind the scenes, however, these same companies are struggling to find consensus on technology standards for addressing spam. They proclaim, spam has become a consumer of headache and corporate nightmare

Microsoft has consistently advocated a holistic approach to controlling the ongoing problem of spam and is leading anti-spam efforts by introducing standards in e-mail authenticity verification. They have incorporated technological innovation, industry cooperation, consumer education, effective legislation and targeted enforcement. Ryan Hamlin, general manager of Microsoft's Anti-Spam Technology and Strategy Group said in a recent interview that Microsoft is committed to using its resources to help address the spam epidemic until they see evidence that the problem has substantially subsided. Microsoft’s technological approach in controlling spam is one of the “Junk E-mail Filter,” that uses new technology to evaluate whether a message, including advanced analysis of the words and structure of the message, to determine the probability that it is junk e-mail. Microsoft’s filter allows the message to be filtered to a “Junk e-mail folder” where the user can retrieve or review the message at a later time.

Microsoft has recently released a technical proposal called the Coordinated Spam Reduction Initiative (CSRI) which includes comprehensive technologies and policies that can help in reducing spam. Their initiative educates high volume email senders about email policies and introduces innovative technologies in spam control. One of the first technical recommendations outlined is a “caller ID” type of approach that takes aim at the rampant practice of sending e-mail with forged “From” addresses, commonly called spoofing.

Caller ID is a mechanism for legitimate senders of mail to help ensure their Domain Name is not being abused by a spammer. Caller ID involves two key steps. One, senders of e-mail publish the IP [Internet Protocol] addresses of their outgoing mail servers in DNS [Domain Name System] in an e-mail policy document. Two, the e-mail software at the receiving end of a message queries DNS for the e-mail policy and determines the "purported responsible domain" of the message. This is done by comparing the information in DNS to ensure it matches the information on the originating mail.

Microsoft recognizes that no single technology will make spam go away entirely but they still hope that Caller ID will serve as a deterrent. Microsoft has also introduced SmartScreen Technology which is an intelligent spam-filtering solution based on Microsoft Research’s patented machine-learning technology. SmartScreen Technology is capable of distinguishing between legitimate e-mails and spam. Microsoft claims that once SmartScreen Technology is fully implemented, users will encounter far less spam on all Microsoft e-mail platforms. Besides Caller ID and SmartScreen Technology Microsoft also believes in safelists and emerging proof-based approaches such as challenge/response, computational puzzles and micropayments can provide a strong challenge to spam.

Alternative Solutions
Regrettably, some spam just won't go away voluntarily. There are spam generators who feel that flooding e-mails with advertisements for the unwanted is an inalienable right, or something they're just entitled to get away with (**US anti-spam law fails to bite).** Perhaps more to the point, there are spammers who take a long time to realize that no one is buying their stuff, even though they blast out tens of millions of e-mail messages a week. Mail filters are essential and are a workable solution to decrease the amount of spam one receives. It is virtually impossible to reason with spammers and your only recourse will be to block their mail before it reaches you. // //Content-based filtering targets the information that is contained in the body of a mail message and or the information contained in the message header. In addition, a large part of spam messages, advertises the same type of products and accordingly tends to use a certain vocabulary. Based on this knowledge it is possible to design body-based spam filters that filter messages containing terms that are "typical" for above mentioned types of messages. Examples for such terms would be "free porn", "XXX", "Warez" or "Get rich quick".

A more radical approach to fighting spam is blocking mail delivery during the transport process when suspicious mail servers are trying to deliver messages. Knowing that a particular mail server is often used for sending spam it is possible to configure the own mail server such that mails from the suspicious server are no longer accepted. Such blocking approaches can use IPs addresses, domain names and other information provided between mail servers.

=Works Cited=

“About CAUCE Canada”. CAUCE. 9 February 2006 .

Batista, Paul J. “The Perils of Telemarketing under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act – Sending Unsolicited Faxes Costs Dallas Cowboys $1.73 Million, Leaves Dallas Mavericks under Full Court Pressure.” __Hein Online: Law Journal Library__ 25 (2003): 231-234..

“Canada’s laws regarding spam are lax and ineffective”. March 9, 2003. The General Center for Internet Services Inc. .

Ferrera et al. __CyberLaw: Text and Cases.__ U.S.A.: Thomson, 2004.


 * “**FTC Announces First Can-Spam Act Cases”. April 2004. Federal Trade Commission. 9 February 2006 .

Gauntlett, David & Horsley, Ross. __//Web Studies. Second Edition.//__ U.S.A.: Oxford UP, 2004.

Manishin, Glenn B. and Stephanie A. Joyce. “Current Spam Law & Policy: An Overview and Update.” __The Computer and Internet Lawyer__ 21 (2004): 1-3.

Mozena, John. “CAUCE, SpamCon Foundation and CAUCE Canada Endorse Trusted Email Open Standard.” 9 Febraury 2006 .

Olsen, Stefanie. “**Technology solution to slicing spam lags.”** CNET News.com. Retrieved on Feb 5th, 2006. Online at: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5176415.html.

“Online Advertising”. UNC. 7 February 2006 <[|http://www.unc.edu/%7Eclee/Webpage/unsolicited_email.htm]>.

Paul Davidson, Jon & Swartz. May 08, 2003. __Spam thrives despite effort to screen it out__. USA Today. Available from: http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2003-05-07-spam-cover_x.htm. Accessed 23 February 2006].

PressPass. “Q&A: Microsoft’s Anti-Pam Technology Roadmap.” Microsoft.com. Online at: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2004/Feb04/02-24CallerID.mspx Retrieved on Feb 6th, 2006.

Roy, Mark. “Spammer Urges Congress to Pass Anti-Spam Law.” //JupiterWeb networks//. Retrieved on Feb 6th, 2006 Online at: [|http://dc.internet.com/news/article.php/2210551�307�]

Schwartz, Alan and Simson Garfinkel. What’s Spam and What’s the Problem? October 1998. O’reilly Online Catalog. 7 February 2006 .

Sorkin E. David. “Technical and Legal Approaches to Unsolicited Electronic Mail”. Online at: http://www.spamlaws.com/articles/usf.pdf Retrieved on Feb 5th, 2006.

“State of Missouri v. American Blast Fax, Inc.” March 2002. Spam Laws. 9 February 2006 .

“US anti-spam law fails to bite”. BBC News World Edition. Retrieved on Feb 5th, 2006 Online at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3465307.stm.

Image (above) courtesy of: http://itstudies.net/images/email_spam_hg_wht.gif