Shalendra Chhabra writes "JonathanZdziarski has been fighting spam since before the first MITspam conference in 2003, and has now released a full-on technicalbook,Ending Spam, on spam filtering. Ending Spamcovers howthe currentand near-future crop of heuristic and statistical filters actually workunder the hood, and how you can most effectively use such filters toprotect your inbox." Read on for the rest of Chhabra's review. Ending Spam: Bayesian Content Filtering and the Art of Statistical Language Classification author Jonathan A. Zdziarski pages 312 publisher No Starch Press rating 8 reviewer Shalendra Chhabra ISBN 1593270526 summary Very Good Book Covering Statistical Models and Techniques Implemented in Current Spam Filters Spam (unsolicited commercial email) and phishing (fraudulent emails)are causing losses of billions of dollars to businesses. Manyinitiatives are currently underway for fighting this challenge. On thelegal front, a Virginia courtrecently sentenced a prolific spammer,Jeremy Jaynes, to nine years in prison, and a Nigeriancourt sentenceda woman to two and a half years for phishing. Michiganand Utah haveboth passed laws creating "do-not-contact" registries in July/August 2005,covering e-mail addresses, instant messaging addresses and telephonenumbers. Technical initiatives to fight spam include server- or client-side spam filtering, using Lists(Blacklists, Whitelists, Greylists), Email Authentication Standards(IIM,DK, DKIM,SPF, SenderID),and emerging sender reputation andaccreditation services. Ending Spam is the first book explaining the finedetails of the theoretical models and machine-learning algorithms implemented in thesefilters. The book is divided into three parts: introduction to spamfiltering, fundamentals of statistical filtering, and advanced conceptsof statistical filtering. The first section of the book discusses the history of spam, spamkings, different approaches for fighting spam such as blacklisting,whitelisting, heuristic filtering, challengeresponse,throttling, collaborative filtering, Authenticated SMTP, Sender PolicyFramework and SenderID,spammer fingerprinting, etc. However, theauthor omitted any mention of locally-sensitive hash functions (such asNilsimsa Hash)to counter spammers' random insertion of words, the useof CAPTCHA (Completely AutomatedPublic Turing Test to Tell Computersand Humans Apart), Greylisting, IdentifiedInternet Mail, and DomainKeys (now Domain Keys Identified Mail). In the next chapter, the author clearly explains various componentsa Language Classifier Pipeline, including the Historical Dataset (akawordlist, database, dictionary, filter memory), Tokenizer, and theAnalysis Engine with its feedback loop. However, the process flow of alanguage classifier could have been more generalized, e.g.incorporating an initial text-to-text transformer. This chapter alsocovers the advantages and disadvantages of various training modes forfilters, such as Train Everything (TEFT), Train-on-Error (TOE), andTrain Until No Errors (TUNE). This part concludes with the descriptionof Paul Graham's famousspam-filtering technique using Bayesianclassification (as described in "A Plan for Spam"), GaryRobinson'sGeometric Mean Test, Fisher-RobinsonsInverse Chi Square (includingthe source code for the inversion function), and some other tricks foroptimizing spam- filtering accuracy. The second part of this book deals with the fundamentals ofstatisticalfiltering. The author explains HTML and Base64 encoding,followed by adetailed description of tokenization techniques (e.g. Sparse BinaryPolynomial Hashing). Then there's a discussion of the varioustricksthat spammers use for penetrating filters. Although these tactics arementioned in John Graham-Cumming's "Spammers Compendium," Jonathan hasvery elegantly explained why some tricks work for spammers and somedon't. This part concludes by addressing some of the resource, storageand scaling concerns raised by the large number of features generatedfrom tokenization techniques. The third part of this book deals with advanced concepts ofstatisticalfiltering. This includes the testing criteria for measuring accuracy ofan email filter, and some advanced tokenization concepts, e.g. chainedtokens (taking word-pairs and phrases into account, instead ofindividual words) generated using a sliding 5-byte window as mentionedin Sparse Binary Polynomial Hashing. The next chapter describes theMarkovian Model implemented in the CRM114 Discriminator, butthe authorfails to describe differentweighting schemes for features implementedin the Markovian-based version of CRM114. The author then describes theBayesian NoiseReduction Technique for purging "out of context" datafrom the mail text. This chapter concludes with a very nice summary ofcollaborative algorithms and techniques, such as MessageInnoculation,Streamlined Blackhole List, Fingerprinting, Automatic Whitelisting, URLBlacklisting, and Honeypotemail addresses for snaring spammers'address harvesting bots. The most interesting part of this book is the appendix, where theauthor presents interviews with JohnGraham-Cumming of POPFile,BrianBurton of SpamProbe, Marty Lambof TarProxy, BillYerazunis of CRM114Discriminator, and Jonathan Zdziarskiof DSPAM (himself). Iloved thissection. The salient points of the book: it's very easy to read; each chapterbegins with a very thought-provoking introduction, and concludes with acrisp "final thoughts" section. The number of technical errors are veryfew in this print, and the illustrations are of good quality. Since thebook is geared more toward the Bayesian and statistical generation ofspam filters, the absence of certain spam-busting technologies isacceptable. However, a noticeable omission is the lack of discussionabout measuring spam-filter accuracy, and what impact this has onsetting filtration thresholds. A section on the economics of tradeoffs,and the use of a ReceiverOperating Characteristic curve (ROC) wouldhave been very helpful. Overall, by putting together Ending Spam, Jonathan Zdziarskimadeanother significant contribution (after DSPAM) to the anti-spamcommunity. Whether you are a system administrator, anti-spamresearcher, engineer or a newbie interested in fighting spam, this bookis a great reference.William S Yerazunisand RichardJowsey also contributed to this review. ShalendraChhabra is a GraduateStudent in Department of ComputerScience and Engineering at Universityof California, Riverside. He is on the development team of CRM114Discriminator and has presented his work at MIT Spam Conference2005, Cisco Systems, and Stanford University. You can purchase Ending Spam: Bayesian Content Filtering and the Art of Statistical Language Classification from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page. This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted. Ending Spam Log in/Create an Account | Top | 184 comments | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 184 comments 0: 174 comments 1: 147 comments 2: 112 comments 3: 25 comments 4: 15 comments 5: 9 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. You can't have both... (Score:3, Insightful) by TarryTops (888130) on Monday August 15, @05:29PM (#13325276) (http://tarrysingh.blogspot.com/) The openness eill have to pay it's cost. and spam is one such pest. You can develop better strategies for pest control. But in the end it's a trade off. Bill Gates promised to end it (Score:2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 15, @05:31PM (#13325291) Why worry about spam? Bill Gates promised to end spam by early next spring. (It's marked in my calendar along with the link to where he promised, but not with me in my PDA right now.)Re:Bill Gates promised to end it by Radres (Score:2)Monday August 15, @06:05PM Like most parasitic maldies (Score:2) by Stanistani (808333) on Monday August 15, @05:31PM (#13325294) (http://slashdot.org/~Stanistani | Last Journal: Wednesday September 21, @11:36AM) I'm wondering... will UCE (Spam) be like malaria... controllable in most areas but impossible to eradicate?Or will these dedicated folks and others be able to eliminate it, perhaps by changes to the mail protocols? Is spam a parasitic malady and, if so, what next? (Score:4, Insightful) by WillAffleckUW (858324) on Monday August 15, @05:41PM (#13325390) (Last Journal: Thursday September 08, @05:32PM) I'm wondering... will UCE (Spam) be like malaria... controllable in most areas but impossible to eradicate?Or will these dedicated folks and others be able to eliminate it, perhaps by changes to the mail protocols?Interesting question that, considering my work involves malaria.My guess is that, like malaria and most parasitic infestations, we will at some point develop a "cure". The "cure" will work for a few years, after which the parasite (spam) will have adapted, surviving until then in different hosts (old windows machines donated to Africa, who knows). Then, having developed a new trick, it will come back as strong as ever.Biology teaches us that organisms adapt to changing environments, thru selective breeding (natural), point mutations, and unforseen combinations (see the H51N avian influenza). We can develop cures, but once we do so, we can be fairly sure that, baring species extinction, it will develop methods to cope with our cures.An easy solution would be to move to IPv6 - but this, like authentication, will only kill off the spam which doesn't use "trusted email clients that are identified" while the spam that can survive will be encouraged to spread like wildfire.So long as the fiscal, legal, and societal penalties for spamming are fairly low and the rewards are high, and while most people do nothing about it, it will spread. [ ParentRe:Is spam a parasitic malady and, if so, what nex by -brazil- (Score:2)Monday August 15, @05:55PMIf it's a business model, where's the underwear? by WillAffleckUW (Score:2)Monday August 15, @06:13PMRe:If it's a business model, where's the underwear by -brazil- (Score:2)Monday August 15, @06:27PMRe:If it's a business model, where's the underwear by WillAffleckUW (Score:2)Monday August 15, @06:40PMRe:If it's a business model, where's the underwear by -brazil- (Score:2)Monday August 15, @07:10PMRe:If it's a business model, where's the underwear by WillAffleckUW (Score:2)Monday August 15, @07:29PM Re:Is spam a parasitic malady and, if so, what nex (Score:4, Interesting) by jonbryce (703250) on Monday August 15, @06:44PM (#13325896) (http://www.jbryce.org.uk/) Spam may not be an organism or an infection, but the people who send it are. So I think it is a perfect analogy. [ ParentRe:Is spam a parasitic malady and, if so, what nex by -brazil- (Score:2)Monday August 15, @06:59PM Re:Is spam a parasitic malady and, if so, what nex (Score:4, Funny) by Tony Hoyle (11698) <tmh@nodomain.org> on Monday August 15, @07:20PM (#13326164) (http://www.nodomain.org/) No, because the anti-spam measures do not aim to kill those peopleYet. [ ParentRe:Is spam a parasitic malady and, if so, what nex by DavidTC (Score:1)Monday August 15, @10:50PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Like most parasitic maldies by FragHARD (Score:1)Monday August 15, @06:54PM3 replies beneath your current threshold. Esprit d'Corps (Score:5, Funny) by Shadow Wrought (586631) on Monday August 15, @05:32PM (#13325308) (http://slashdot.org/~Shadow%20Wrought/journal | Last Journal: Wednesday September 21, @01:09PM) While all of these different technological approaches to spam are worth pursuing, they just don't build the same esprit d'corps as a mob with pitchforks and torches at midnight.Re:Esprit d'Corps by DavidTC (Score:2)Monday August 15, @10:58PMRe:Esprit d'Corps by ThePromenader (Score:1)Tuesday August 16, @03:16AMRe:Esprit d'Corps by Shadow Wrought (Score:2)Monday August 15, @07:01PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Sorry for the flamebait but (Score:2, Funny) by suso (153703) * on Monday August 15, @05:33PM (#13325312) (http://suso.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday March 09, @01:03AM) "Jonathan Zdziarski has been fighting spam since before the first MIT spam conference in 2003,"Awww, poor babies. That's a long time to fight spam. Re:Sorry for the flamebait but (Score:5, Informative) by Stanistani (808333) on Monday August 15, @05:37PM (#13325354) (http://slashdot.org/~Stanistani | Last Journal: Wednesday September 21, @11:36AM) From:HERE [castlecops.com] "ABOUT THE AUTHOR:Jonathan A. Zdziarski has been fighting spam for eight years, and has spent a significant portion of the past two years working on the next generation spam filter DSPAM. His research in algorithmic theory and neural networking has led to the development of many new approaches in language classification, and he has played a key role in designing some popular algorithms in use today, including Message Inoculation, Bayesian Noise Reduction, and the first functional Neural Networking algorithm for spam filters. Zdziarski lectures widely on the topic of spam and was a speaker at the 2004 and 2005 MIT Spam Conference." [ Parent The best way to fight spam (Score:5, Funny) by WillAffleckUW (858324) on Monday August 15, @05:35PM (#13325327) (Last Journal: Thursday September 08, @05:32PM) is with a knife, a spatula, and a frying pan, preferably over a hot wood fire.Yum!Re:The best way to fight spam by E-Rock (Score:2)Monday August 15, @06:56PM Score -5 Outdated. (Score:2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 15, @05:35PM (#13325332) As with any book of this type, it is outdated by the time it reaches the shelves. The spam battlefield changes on a daily basis and the tools used to fight the battle, change with it daily.By the time a book has been written edited, proof read(though many publishers skip this part), type set, printed, distributed and sold, it no longer resembles the technology.Fundamentals Don't Change Much/Fast by billstewart (Score:3)Monday August 15, @06:15PMRe:Fundamentals Don't Change Much/Fast by TooncesTheCat (Score:1)Monday August 15, @07:59PMRe:Fundamentals Don't Change Much/Fast by PeeCee (Score:2)Monday August 15, @08:32PMRe:Fundamentals Don't Change Much/Fast by Antique Geekmeister (Score:2)Monday August 15, @08:21PMRe:Score -5 Outdated. by jdowland (Score:1)Tuesday August 16, @05:31AM You can't catch it all (Score:2, Insightful) by solodex2151 (700977) on Monday August 15, @05:37PM (#13325350) Spam will continue to disguise itself as legit email. You can try to filter it out and set more strict filters but catching legitimate mail is far more likely to happen. In the end, you have to make a trade off and practically accept some spam.Re:You can't catch it all by MightyMartian (Score:2)Monday August 15, @05:46PM Re:You can't catch it all (Score:5, Interesting) by plover (150551) * on Monday August 15, @06:07PM (#13325614) (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Thursday June 02, @02:22PM) You've missed the last two years in spammer technology, haven't you?Spam is no longer simply the domain of a giant server with a huge database. It's increasingly being sent out by zombie PCs, infected with viruses or trojans. Spammers pay the zombie-farmers to send their crap. Zombies send the email masquerading as the PC owner, using their credentials. Sender-ID? No problem, he's got one. SMTP? Sure, use the victim's server.Zombies mean that no matter what technology is used for sending validated, signed, pre-paid, whatever email, the zombies will have access to those resources and will still spew their crap. No anti-spam server technologies are going to prevent Windows machines from getting infested. [ Parent Re:You can't catch it all (Score:5, Interesting) by MightyMartian (840721) on Monday August 15, @06:17PM (#13325684) I'm well aware of the zombie problem (having been the recipient of very nasty distributed dictionary attacks). The way that mail ought to work is that any system without an MX record ought not to be permitted to send email to an MTA. Unfortunately for a variety of reasons (from legitimate to pure incompetence or laziness) many mail servers do not have MX or reverse records, and because sufficient amounts of legitimate email come from such servers, and because there is no line drawn between MTA and MUA (all go through port 25TCP), zombies can quite happily spread havoc.The first step to a new mail system is to assure that only legitimate and properly configured mail servers honoring MX records on outgoing mail (or whatever ends up replacing MX records) can expect delivery. Mail admins' hands are tied by stealth systems or badly configured ones, but if we do try to implement the no-MX rule, which would eliminate the zombie attacks, we end up shutting out systems that, for whatever reason, don't publish an MX record for outgoing servers.Zombies ought to be the easiest thing to shut down by a) not permitting non-MTA machines to push anything beyond the network via port 25 and b) publishing both incoming and outgoing mail servers. [ ParentRe:You can't catch it all by iburrell (Score:1)Monday August 15, @07:48PMRe:You can't catch it all by Fareq (Score:2)Monday August 15, @07:59PMRe:You can't catch it all by farnz (Score:3)Monday August 15, @08:30PMRe:You can't catch it all by 51mon (Score:1)Monday August 15, @07:32PMRe:You can't catch it all by lupin_sansei (Score:1)Monday August 15, @08:58PM Ending Spam? (Score:5, Insightful) by demonbug (309515) on Monday August 15, @05:39PM (#13325371) Does anyone else find it funny that a book called "Ending Spam" talks about spam filtering? Maybe I'll go write a book; "Ending World Hunger: How To Filter Sally Struthers From Your Television". If you can't see it, it ain't there?Re:Ending Spam? by DogDude (Score:3)Monday August 15, @05:51PMRe:Ending Spam? by dodobh (Score:2)Tuesday August 16, @09:31AM Effecitve filtering will end spam (Score:5, Insightful) by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Monday August 15, @05:52PM (#13325491) The reason spammers do it is that their message reaches people, enough of them to make it worthwhile. So, the more effective and widespread the filters, the less messages that reach people, and the less it's worth. If the filters were really effective, nearly 100%, it would simply not be worth it to spam, you wouldn't make any money because no one would see your message.I don't think we'll ever get there, but yes filtering really could end spam. [ ParentI know it's a cliché movie, but I can't help by Idealius (Score:3)Monday August 15, @06:03PMRe:I know it's a cliché movie, but I can't he by plover (Score:2)Tuesday August 16, @08:45AMRe:I know it's a cliché movie, but I can't he by Steve B (Score:2)Tuesday August 16, @09:39AMRe:Effecitve filtering will end spam by thogard (Score:2)Monday August 15, @06:54PMRe:Effecitve filtering will end spam by Fareq (Score:2)Monday August 15, @08:03PMRe:Effecitve filtering will end spam by thogard (Score:2)Monday August 15, @09:40PMRe:Effecitve filtering will end spam by DavidTC (Score:1)Monday August 15, @11:06PMRe:Effecitve filtering will end spam by Sanga (Score:2)Monday August 15, @09:35PMRe:Effecitve filtering will end spam by ivan256 (Score:2)Monday August 15, @10:31PMRe:Effecitve filtering will end spam by DavidTC (Score:1)Monday August 15, @11:08PMRe:Effecitve filtering will end spam by DavidTC (Score:1)Monday August 15, @11:19PMRe:Effecitve filtering will end spam by jrumney (Score:2)Tuesday August 16, @05:30AMRe:Effecitve filtering will end spam by dodobh (Score:2)Tuesday August 16, @09:26AM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:Ending Spam? (Score:4, Insightful) by pomo monster (873962) on Monday August 15, @05:56PM (#13325523) Well, in a way, and I don't mean philosophically. If nobody can see the spam, then it really will dry up--spammers won't even bother.There's no such thing as a perfect filtering system, but for every message blocked, that's extra effort for the spammer to get through, making it less and less worthwhile to spam at all.Or maybe they'll just send more and more, hoping at least one gets through. [ ParentRe:Ending Spam? by Gob Gob (Score:1)Tuesday August 16, @07:25AM1 reply beneath your current threshold. fantastic advice (Score:2, Interesting) by Anonymous Spammer (700974) on Monday August 15, @05:40PM (#13325376) We spammers love you idiots who use spam filters. You were never going to buy from us or fall for our scheems anyway, so you do extra work to filter your e-mail and that way we are not bothered by you reporting us or attacking us. We are free to continue to waste your bandwidth and overflow your inbox, but you never see the spam and you leave us alone, to keep spamming those too ignorant to protect themselves. The complaints die down and we get what we want, the unknowing victims. What a great system. Heck, our lobby group even points out to Congress how spam laws are not really needed, since people who really don't want the spam are free to filter it. That and a litte payola and we are free to phish for more victims.Yea, keep "fighting spam" with lame filters, we love it. Thanks! Email is mostly broken (Score:4, Interesting) by mcrbids (148650) on Monday August 15, @05:42PM (#13325397) Email, as a system, is fundamentally broken. It's this broken design that allows SPAM to happen in the first place.Current anti-spam solutions are to email what an Antivirus package is to Windows - a hack add-on that increases complexity and costs without solving the underlying problem(s).Rather than fight viruses, we should be engineering an O/S that's inherently resistent to them. How many of you Linux/BSD/MacOS users EVER use antivirus, or need to?Rather than build ever-better antispam filters for Email, we should be engineering an email solution that's inherenly resistant to SPAM.The answer lies in authentication - who is sending the email. Some of the best technologies now available use degrees of authentication without actually *saying* it outright. Examples are: refusing invalid domains, greylisting, challenge-response, SenderID - all of these are some form of authentication.As these are, one-by-one bypassed by the spammers, the need for authentication of senders will continue to increase, until the dolts who will invariably reply with that "your solution will not work because... (check the options)" are shown to simply be.... wrong.Give it time. It's already happening whatever the originators of the SMTP protocol desired. Re:Email is mostly broken (Score:5, Insightful) by MichaelSmith (789609) on Monday August 15, @05:47PM (#13325452) (http://www.netapps.com.au/) The answer lies in authenticationAnd it requires central control. Is this what you want? [ ParentRe:Email is mostly broken by PhoenixRising (Score:1)Monday August 15, @08:15PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Email is mostly broken by MightyMartian (Score:3)Monday August 15, @05:53PMClaiming "SMTP is Broken" without any better ideas by billstewart (Score:2)Monday August 15, @06:58PMRe:Email is mostly broken by Gob Gob (Score:1)Tuesday August 16, @07:36AMRe:Email is mostly broken by Grax (Score:1)Tuesday August 16, @10:38AMRe:Email is mostly broken by MemeRot (Score:2)Monday August 15, @06:02PMGotta use it right by jfengel (Score:3)Monday August 15, @06:47PMRe:Gotta use it right by pete6677 (Score:2)Monday August 15, @07:02PMRe:Gotta use it right by jfengel (Score:3)Monday August 15, @07:21PMRe:Gotta use it right by Antique Geekmeister (Score:3)Monday August 15, @08:32PMRe:Gotta use it right by Antique Geekmeister (Score:2)Monday August 15, @08:28PMRe:Email is mostly broken by huckda (Score:1)Monday August 15, @06:11PMRe:Email is mostly broken by Dunbal (Score:2)Monday August 15, @06:39PMRe:Email is mostly broken by The Cisco Kid (Score:2)Monday August 15, @06:49PM Re:Email is mostly broken (Score:4, Informative) by MrAnnoyanceToYou (654053) on Monday August 15, @06:15PM (#13325667) (Last Journal: Monday September 12, @12:29PM) You asked for it, Here It Is. You have officially scored the lowest I have ever personally seen, and I had to actually ADD negative things to the checklist just for you. Yes, it's a possibility. Unfortunately, in this case the 'dolts who invariably reply with the survey' are actually right. The survey is funny, but it serves a very important purpose in this case - it shows that completely re-engineering the entire e-mail system means that the problems we have are masked temporarily and then reemerge. Identity, no identity, in the end the 'stopgaps' are actually better than the 'build it from the ground up' solution. You Personally advocate a (x) technical (x) legislative (x) market-based ( ) vigilante approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.) (x) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses(x) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected(x) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks(x) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it(x) Users of email will not put up with it( ) Microsoft will not put up with it( ) The police will not put up with it(x) Requires too much cooperation from spammers(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once(x) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers(x) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists(x) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business Specifically, your plan fails to account for ( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it(N/A) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email(x) Open relays in foreign countries( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses(x) Asshats(x) Jurisdictional problems(x) Unpopularity of weird new taxes( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money(x) Huge existing software investment in SMTP(x) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack(x) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email(x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes(x) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches(x) Extreme profitability of spam( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft(x) Technically illiterate politicians(x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers(x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Microsoft(x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Yahoo(x) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering( ) Outlook and the following philosophical objections may also apply: (x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical(x) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable(x) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation(x) Blacklists suck( ) Whitelists suck( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored(x) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud(x) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually(x) Sending email should be free(x) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?(x) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome(x) I don't want the government reading my email( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough Furthermore, this is what I think about you: ( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.(x) This is a stupid iRead the rest of this comment... [ Parentwhat by Apotsy (Score:2)Tuesday August 16, @01:24AMRe:what by MrAnnoyanceToYou (Score:2)Tuesday August 16, @12:34PMOT: What's with these forms? by alfboggis (Score:1)Tuesday August 16, @05:14AMRe:OT: What's with these forms? by MrAnnoyanceToYou (Score:2)Tuesday August 16, @12:41PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Email is mostly broken by Itanshi (Score:1)Monday August 15, @07:34PMRe:Email is mostly broken by jemfinch (Score:2)Tuesday August 16, @12:26AM