Fighting Spam

[xspro]

Fighting Spam
Spam is not only a nuisance and a drain on IT resources, but the greatest security threat to a company’s network.
There are currently three well known levels of spam prevention available on the market.
Desktop level, Server level and Network level. The best choice for your business will be dependent on the current threats, the size of your company, the number of resources available and of course, your budget.
Desktop Level

The first, most basic, and widely known is desktop level protection. Popular products such as Norton Internet Security, Kaspersksy Mail protection and Outlook (using the Junk email feature) fight spam at your PC. i.e. on the desktop.
This method is the easiest to implement, and for an organisation with a small number of PCs, also the quickest and most cost effective. If you are already using Microsoft Office and have purchased a product such as Norton for your antivirus protection, you will already be taking advantage of some spam fighting tools.
Spam rules are normally very flexible, and give the user great power in controlling exactly how the spam is dealt with.

For companies with 25 PCs or more, installing and managing, spam fighting/prevention software on each pc individually can become quite laborious, and difficult to manage for in-house IT staff.
Due to the fact that the spam is being dealt with at the desktop, it also means that it creates a heavy workload on the company’s mail server and network. This can create additional costs due to increased bandwidth, and through paying for extra support either via outsourcing, or due to in-house support engineer time.

Cost summary
Normally around £25-40(approx) per pc, and products require to be upgraded just once a year.
Server Level

The more popular method with companies with between 10-100 PCs, server level spam protection, as the name suggests deals with spam on the actual mail server behind the company’s firewall, before it reaches the desktop.
It has its obvious advantages: giving room to centralised management of all desktops, reducing the threat to internal PCs. Computers can be updated with the latest spam definitions on a regular basis, and can be monitored for spam activity.
This of course requires some amount of in-house expertise. Companies without in-house IT support will struggle to maintain such a spam prevention infrastructure. Spam rules are available but can be a little more complex to implement then their desktop counterpart.
Some vendors provide software based solutions which can be installed on the mail server, such as GFI with their ‘mail essentials’ product. Microsoft is currently making good headway with its Microsoft Forefront suite of products due to its re-aligned security focus. Real world long term tests are yet to be seen.
Other vendors provide hardware appliances, which can in fact be slightly easier to manage, and do not require any software installation whatsoever.

Cost summary
Software products: Normally around £600 (approx) per server, for up to 25 PCs.
Hardware appliances: Normally around £1200(approx)
Network Level

Currently the IT Service Provider’s preferred method of spam protection for many reasons.
Network level protection deals with spam before it reaches the client’s network. This means no increase in bandwidth costs, and a heavily reduced threat to the company’s network.
Home users have had the benefits of network level protection for some time with introductions from Hotmail, AOL and other popular ISPs. Most spam is filtered before it reaches the clients mailbox. Spam definitions are updated much more regularly and spam rules can be almost as, if not just as, flexible as desktop based solutions.
Many messaging providers now offer network level spam protection as a managed service. This means, not only is your company’s spam load reduced greatly, but specialist expertise and support is available where and when necessary. Most specialist providers currently have a success rate of greater than 97% and now provide many other benefits, such as email backup, spam statistics and email disclaimers.
Network level protection, ultimately results in much simplified management, with no requirement for in-house expertise and is available at a cost comparable to their desktop counterparts with many added advantages.
Cost summary
£700 annually (approx) for up to 15 users.

Technical article compiled by Khuram Malik
XS-PRO Limited
Blog

 

Not to nit-pick, but just some comments that jumped out at me

Fighting Spam
Spam is not only a nuisance and a drain on IT resources, but the greatest security threat to a company’s network.
There are currently three well known levels of spam prevention available on the market.
Desktop level, Server level and Network level. The best choice for your business will be dependent on the current threats, the size of your company, the number of resources available and of course, your budget.
Desktop Level

The first, most basic, and widely known is desktop level protection. Popular products such as Norton Internet Security (very resource hungry), Kaspersksy Mail protection and Outlook (using the 'crap' Junk email feature) fight spam at your PC. i.e. on the desktop. (What about AVG and their very popular range of products? Also what about the free editions of AVG, Avast, etc - although these are really designed for home-use, rather than business?)
This method is the easiest to implement, and for an organisation with a small number of PCs, also the quickest and most cost effective. If you are already using Microsoft Office and have purchased a product such as Norton for your antivirus protection, you will already be taking advantage of some spam fighting tools.
Spam rules are normally very flexible, and give the user great power in controlling exactly how the spam is dealt with.

For companies with 25 PCs or more, installing and managing, spam fighting/prevention software on each pc individually can become quite laborious, and difficult to manage for in-house IT staff.
Due to the fact that the spam is being dealt with at the desktop, it also means that it creates a heavy workload on the company’s mail server and network. This can create additional costs due to increased bandwidth, and through paying for extra support either via outsourcing, or due to in-house support engineer time.

Cost summary
Normally around £25-40(approx) per pc, and products require to be upgraded just once a year. (Not so for AVG's Internet Security package - you get updates free with it, both for the definition files and the application files)
Server Level

The more popular method with companies with between 10-100 PCs, server level spam protection, as the name suggests deals with spam on the actual mail server behind the company’s firewall, before it reaches the desktop.
It has its obvious advantages: giving room to centralised management of all desktops, reducing the threat to internal PCs. Computers can be updated with the latest spam definitions on a regular basis, and can be monitored for spam activity.
This of course requires some amount of in-house expertise. Companies without in-house IT support will struggle to maintain such a spam prevention infrastructure (Again, not really so - if it is installed correctly, then it will run away happily. Take Sophos and its add-ons, they can be installed in this fashion and will perform automatic client-based updates from the server on a regular basis, without any user input). Spam rules are available but can be a little more complex to implement then their desktop counterpart.
Some vendors provide software based solutions which can be installed on the mail server, such as GFI with their ‘mail essentials’ product. Microsoft is currently making good headway with its Microsoft Forefront suite of products due to its re-aligned security focus. Real world long term tests are yet to be seen.
Other vendors provide hardware appliances, which can in fact be slightly easier to manage, and do not require any software installation whatsoever.

Cost summary
Software products: Normally around £600 (approx) per server, for up to 25 PCs.
Hardware appliances: Normally around £1200(approx)
Network Level

Currently the IT Service Provider’s preferred method of spam protection for many reasons.
Network level protection deals with spam before it reaches the client’s network. This means no increase in bandwidth costs, and a heavily reduced threat to the company’s network.
Home users have had the benefits of network level protection for some time with introductions from Hotmail, AOL and other popular ISPs. Most spam is filtered before it reaches the clients mailbox. Spam definitions are updated much more regularly and spam rules can be almost as, if not just as, flexible as desktop based solutions (though AOL has been criticised for blocking a little heavy-handedly).
Many messaging providers now offer network level spam protection as a managed service. This means, not only is your company’s spam load reduced greatly, but specialist expertise and support is available where and when necessary. Most specialist providers currently have a success rate of greater than 97% and now provide many other benefits, such as email backup, spam statistics and email disclaimers.
Network level protection, ultimately results in much simplified management, with no requirement for in-house expertise and is available at a cost comparable to their desktop counterparts with many added advantages. (also needs to be monitored very well - otherwise how does the user get to choose filtered items as 'not spam'?)
Cost summary
£700 annually (approx) for up to 15 users.

Technical article compiled by Khuram Malik
XS-PRO Limited
Blog

Good article though

Mark

 

[xspro]

Hey,

Thanks for the response. I welcome constructive criticism.
I didnt really point out AVG and Avast (yes i am aware of them) as the free editions are *supposed* to be for personal use only, and this article was for businesses.

And yes you are right, Norton and Kaspersky are very resource hungry. I actually forgot to mention that. Kaspersky is the worst in my experience.

As for network level protection, the managed service providers manage the false positives on the client behalf. Thats the point i was trying to get across, but maybe didnt do that so well
They also quote the lowest industry rates for false positive

but thanks anyhow

 

AVG do have a very good range of 'paid' products too - their 'Internet Security' product is excellent and very good value. Obviously I am a little biased as I resell it, but I also give my users independent and honest advice - and if AVG is not right, I tell them so.

The article is good though - I have been thinking about something like that for my own site, and I might come back to you for a link or suchlike.

 

[stugster]

Khuram,

If you were to update it with the reflections that Comspec made, I would love to be able to feature an edited (dumbed down version) of your article - with link back to your site, on mine

Please let me know!

 

[xspro]

No problem at all. I write about 2 articles a week and also have a blog at
http://krmmalik.wordpress.com

So if there is any subject you would like me to write about, feel free to suggest a topic, and mention any of your own content.
I generally prefer niche areas.

 

[xspro]

Hi Stugster,

Yes i would be happy to do that.

Are you wanting to do the "dumbing down" yourself, or would you like me to do that?

 

I like the article and, as Stuart said, I would be quick to include a 'dumbed-down' (great wording btw) version on my own site.

I would like to see it include a list of the most popular packages, with some general feelings on each for the user - but maybe I am pitching it in a different way than you wanted to go.

Regards
Mark

 

[stugster]

Yeh, I don't know what you want to achieve with the article. My main concern would be that the language and terminology used is implying it's for someone who's of a technical background. But, someone of that status would already know about fighting spam.

So, how about you were to redraft it with the additions, and the laymen's terms, and then publish it?

I'll grab a copy and link it back to you

Future articles well appreciated too!

Why Choose Vista?
Access Email from Anywhere (pop3,imap,webmail)
Don't Pay! Get it Free! (Office, OpenOffice, open source versions).

 

[xspro]

ok well perhaps you can post an executive summary on your respective sites, and then link back to the article?
as long as it doesnt conflict interest with ur clients, it should be fine, no?

 

Yes - cheers. I will be back to you in a week or so, when I get time to pull something together.

I have added one article to my site regarding Windows Vista, and have a couple of others ready to be added soon ('Laptop vs Desktop' and 'Internet Security' - a general one), but wanted to build these up a little as they are definitely helping my traffic lately.

 

[xspro]

Oh...and yes, this particular article was written for someone who was going to make be making the choice of which route their company would be taking.

I have other articles which are for the ordinary user.

You might wanna pick one off here
www.xs-pro.co.uk

have a look off the front page. Might be something of more interest to you

Also the column on my blog is for entrepeneurs.
or better still might be easier to come up with a new topic completely

 

[stugster]

Ah, god send

No point in re-inventing the wheel!

Will this have a downside to your SEO etc, i.e. duplicate content?

 

[xspro]

I'll be doing training videos next week too, incidentally.

 

[xspro]

I dno? i know very little about SEO. Maybe you can advise me?

 

[stugster]

I'm in the same boat as you in regards to the SEO I'm afraid. I'll ask a few friends and see

Maybe someone on here will advise before then!


[UPDATE:] http://www.bytestart.co.uk/content/promotion/7_7/seo-duplicate-web-content.shtml

 

[KM-Tiger]

There are currently three well known levels of spam prevention available on the market.
Desktop level, Server level and Network level.

At best, this is seriously misleading, particularly in the implication that the only way of dealing with Spam is to buy software. Your article reads like an "advertorial" sponsored by the software vendors.

"Server level" vs "Network Level" shows a misunderstanding of how email works. Email transactions take place between servers, using the network to make a connection. I think what you really mean here is Service Provider level, which is a different thing.

You totally miss out the option for a business to run its own mailserver. Properly configured, and using the many free tools available, better than 90% of Spam can be rejected before delivery, making post-delivery filtering an optional extra rather than a necessity. For a business already paying for server maintenance, this could be a zero cost option.

 

[xspro]

OK. "Kent", as much as i appreciate constructive criticism, and refining articles is always good, i dont particularly appreciate your comments.

The scope of this article was to highlight the differences between the types of protection. I resent the fact that you state this is an advertorial.
If that was the case, i would be doing much more product placement and even providing links back to where these products or services can be purchased. Clearly, something i have not done.
Furthermore, i am not a reseller for any of the products mentioned, and even taking into consideration the fact that my own preferred route is network level protection, i strictly have not mentioned any service provider level names. I dont think i need to say anymore on this particular point.

Furthermore, as you can see in my dialogue with the other guys, they have specifically stated that they would have preferred that i mention other products. Again, i did not do this, cos this is not an advertisiment or a promotion. That in itself, should drive the point home.

Thank you for the introduction as to what networks are, i do wonder how i have been providing network support for the past 7 years to many SMEs without this knowledge. Yes, i am being sarcastic.

I will leave you to do your own research on spam protection providers. You will find alot of them mention "network level protection" as a form of protection outside the company's firewall. Internal networks are not the only networks, and you dont need me to patronise you in explaining that the internet is also a network. After all, its based on TCP/IP.
Call it what you want, the message of the type protection is still relayed to the reader.


I dont like getting involved in technical debates, because they are pointless. Every mention of technology and and solutions are going to be based on their business context and perspective. The purpose of this article was for people who may be initiatiating dialogue with companies that provide spam based solutions in order to help them better assess the most suitable product and service for them.

I am well versed with how email transactions take place, and if you were to re-read the article you would see that it inherently implies that the company has to have a mail server already present in-house. Its kind of a given and kind of obvious, and yes there are many free tools available that can be used with existing mail servers. Intellkigent message filtering, Sender policy frameworks, header inspection and a whole host of other filtering mechanisms but again, it goes beyond the scope of the article. All these free tools, again relate to server based protection. Which is a type of protection.

And i implore you to deny the fact that a fair number of these tools cannot be implemented by the ordinary user without great technical difficulty. Because if that were the the case, then perhaps i should pack up my business and leave. It would render the whole article pointless.

I suggest you have a re-think about what you have said. I resent your statements.

If you feel you need to discuss this further, then by all means give me a call on my landline on 0845 119 2500 and we can chat about spam fighting techniques until the cows come home.

At least that way we wont be subjecting the rest of the UK Business forum community to the typical "geek talk" that iIT Technicians are notorious for, and which i might add you are adding a further dis-service too.

Enjoy your stay.

 

[RedEvo]

We've just started a 14 day free trail of this.

d

 

[awebapart.com]

Hi Khuram

You write about tackling spam, but IMO prevention is always better than cure, and currently you are making 2 obvious mistakes with your web presence that are inviting spam in the first place:

1. you have a sales@ email address. It is easy for spam farms to find lists of web domains, and one of the first things they do is start spamming to common popular names at those web domains, e.g. sales@, info@, post@ etc. So to prevent spam starting this way, you should always choose a less common email address, e.g. thesalesteam@

2. your website has email addresses that can easily be extracted by spam farm automated robots which visit websites and gather email addresses. So even if you had an uncommon email address, the way you are currently displaying it on the site (as plain text, or even as a simple mailto link), means that it too will eventually end up being on spam lists. To prevent this from happening you have to make it more difficult for the spam farms (e.g. show an image of your email address, avoid mailto links, obfuscate via javascript, etc)

This is simple prevention advice we give to all of our sitebuilder service clients (and our sitebuilder provides email address obfuscation), before we start talking about cures for spam.

 

[xspro]

Hi Paul

Thank you for your response.

People seem to have mis-understood the point of the article. It might have been better to explain beforehand.

Anyhow, thank you for the points you mention.

i am, believe it or not aware of all the issues you mention.
It was a conscious decision we made to have the address listed, mainly due to business reasons and not for technical reasons.

But thank you nonetheless.

 

[xspro]

Perhaps we can get together and come up with some ideas for writing an article on preventing spam, as opposed to fighting it.

I would always agree that prevention is far better than the cure.

As i said earlier, the point of the article was for people looking to make a decision on their spam fighting route, which would suggest they're already in a spam crisis. It kind of goes beyond the scope of the article.

 

[RedEvo]

There might be an argument against using non standard email addresses such as thesalesteam@ etc.

I want to make it simple for customers to contact me and common addresses are just that, common and well used by good guys as well as bad guys.

Secondly, the uncommon addresses will be picked up sooner or later - IMHO - so in my view systems that filter spam out are perhaps the way to go.

This is just a view and not intended to be seen as adversarial.

d

 

[awebapart.com]

My personal view is that if you provide a common email address to customers, then chances are that not only will you be receiving valid email but also a lot of spam email too, over time, in which case you end up setting up tight spam filters, which might increase the chance of a customer's email being treated as spam and not getting to you. I do not think that anti-spam systems are foolproof, and I would still manually check email the email spam filters say are spam before deleting. The more spam you get the harder it is to manually check.

This is just my view, and I understand the simple address argument, some of my clients still opt for simple common addresses.

The spam crisis is a big area, and perhaps you are right Khuram to focus in on one aspect.

 

[xspro]

Its horses for courses, isnt it really?

I guess the ultimate decision will be based on what you feel best suits your business, and what you can and cannot handle.

have a look at this:
http://www.policypatrol.com/Email_FilterDownloadfrm.htm

I have seen a few people use this. Its basically built atop the Sender Policy framework idea.

One of our associates that use this, have their emails clearly visible on their site, but by using policy patrol, when an email is sent to their organisation, the program responds with an automated email to the sender asking them to confirm their identity using an image verification tool.

The sender is only asked to to this once, and dont have to do this each time, but i thought its quite nifty idea.

I havent implemented this on our site, because i dont feel our customers are necessarily the most internet savvy, and the last thing i want to do is confuse them with a sender verification system, but still, i think it would work very well in a fair number of scenarios.

Disclaimer:
I am in no way affiliated with Policy Patrol and will not profit from any business interest they receive.

 

[awebapart.com]

Yes there is the confusion and making your customers jump through hoops issue with this approach, technically it is OK as long as the automated email sent to the original customer isn't marked and deleted as spam by the customer's spam tool! The other way around this is to have email forms, which again has it's own issues. It is a big subject!