Innovative ideas: The FFB

Innovative ideas...

Albert Einstein "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities" -- I often feel the same is true about great ideas.
 

After writing about "Legal DoS" antispam techniques, and my "Talk Show Host" scenario last month, I read the November 4 article by Amit Asaravala in Wired News called: "Spam Wars: Filters Strike Back." I was delighted to discover that my idea wasn't so far-fetched after all, and that there's someone else mad enough about spam to stand up and offer a viable solution to the spam epidemic.
      Back in August, antispam activist Paul Graham proposed that next generation spam filters comply to the spammer's request and go to the advertised web site. He calls the concept "Filters that Fight Back" or "FFB." Such a filters would decipher the message in the spam, and sends a ping or request to the domain being advertised. With such filters in wide spread use, the resulting amount of traffic to the spammer's site could easily crash the spammer's server. I have always advocated targeting the actual advertiser in the spam rather than the sender or the ISP of the sender.
      Asaravala's assertion that such a filter would be illegal is misleading to the reader and does disservice to the idea. Comparing an FFB with a hacker's denial of service attack is completely out to lunch. While the resulting effect of the FFB may act like a denial-of-service attack, it isn't one, and I don't believe it could be prosecuted as such.
      First, who is the plaintiff? The identity thief or the scam rip-off artist? (In Virginia, this is a Felony anyway, so the spammer would probably end up behind bars rather than in front of a judge!) Then, who are they going to complain against? And how will they prove which particular computer owner brought down the house. After all, it's not illegal to click to a web site or send an email, particularly when that's exactly what the spam invited the reader to do! And you can't charge the maker of the filter any more than you can charge Microsoft for sending viruses or Limewire for pirating MP3s. You've got no plaintiff and you've got no perpetrator, no crimes have been committed, you've got no case.

Punishing the criminal

Graham's plan is one of the best I've heard so far because it punishes the spammer proportionately according to the amount of spam sent. If the spammer sends 25 million spams, his server gets a response from each and every piece. You can easily see how devastating this could be to the spammer.
      Why is it that every time a good idea comes along, the media is quick to shoot it down and prejudice the readers against it? Asaravala calls upon Francois Lavaste, vice president of marketing for Brightmail, to comment. That was intelligent -- ask a company who stands to lose the most if FFBs become popular. And, duh, of course -- interview an advertiser, right? Did anyone ever prove for sure that companies like Brightmail aren't actually behind some of the spam? (Read: "Cloaking Device Made for Spammers" and ask yourself if this is not the perfect backroom for Brightmail!)
      I think Graham's FFB is actually a good idea, and a workable one, whether the media likes it or not. Sure, it would require careful planning and implementation. But what emerging software doesn't? Creative ideas like this will always be resisted by whiners, naysayers and quiet antagonists like the media. Firms who stand to lose, like Brightmail, will always have reasons for opposing ideas which will potentially bring an end to spam -- reasons with dollar marks. As for this antispam activist however, I've contacted Graham to see the financial feasibility of producing such a filter just to see if it works!
 

So there you have it. Let's hear what you have to say about the matter.

Thanks for reading...

Also read Paul's wonderful essay "Will Filters Stop Spam"

In this series:

• #158 Email problems getting SoBig
• #159 Nextel spams with paper
• #160 What to do about spam?
• #161 Legal Denial of Service
• #162 The Fark dot com Scenario?