White Pages | Law Offices Turning To Technology In Attempts To Weed Out Spam
Legislative efforts, such as the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 have failed to stop the e-mail assault.
When most computer users opened their e-mail application this morning, they had to wade through junk e-mail that was waiting to be sifted, sorted and deleted. To make the problem worse, they'll probably have to do the same thing again tomorrow -- spend time wading through offers for mortgages, watches, drugs or computers.
But how many consider the true cost of having attorneys and staff throughout the organization processing this unwanted stuff?
In 2002, Ferris Research estimated the total cost of spam to U.S. corporations reached 8.9 billion dollars in lost productivity. A recent study done by the Federal Trade Commission found that 77 percent of all e-mail recipients spend approximately 10 minutes per day dealing with spam in their inbox. If an attorney bills $200 per hour, these 10 minutes equate to $10,000 in lost billable time per year.
There's no question that sending spam is big business. In November 2004, an Associated Press article reported the case of an individual who claimed income of $750,000 in one month.
Spam filters
The job of stopping spam has fallen to individuals and organizations, many of whom are implementing sophisticated spam filters.
One feature of a good spam filter is the ability to perform the kind of validation that Caller ID provides. There are many kinds of validation used, with names such as Sender ID, Sender Policy Framework, Reverse Domain Name Service and others. Each method strives to get some kind of proof that the sender is who he says he is.
Unfortunately, validation alone is not effective. Heuristics testing is necessary to make it possible to check the subject, the "to" and "from" information, and the actual body of the e-mail for certain key words and phrases.
When done correctly, these tests are not fooled by the deliberate misspelling sometimes used; misspelling "cheap" as "cheep," for example.
Heuristics must be used with care. If an organization were to screen for e-mails with "cheap" in the subject line, it is conceivable that legitimate e-mails regarding cost cutting initiatives could be marked as spam. This is not going to inspire confidence in a mail filter solution. So the heuristic test must allow room for error and cannot be the only test used.
To counter these types of problems, a modern mail filtering system will, in effect, give each message it receives a comprehensive exam. The exam will consist of many individual tests, and the message will be graded. The higher the score, the more likely the message is to be junk. When a pre-set score is exceeded, the message can confidently be marked as spam.
Array of choices
But which system should be used? The array of choices has grown rapidly, as many technology firms have jumped on the mail-filtering bandwagon. There are client-based solutions that must be installed on every desktop. There are server-based solutions that run on the e-mail server and integrate with its basic operations or that run on their own server. There are services that will perform mail filtering for a monthly fee. And there are filtering appliances that plug in and go to work. Every solution has merits and weaknesses.
Desktop-based solutions are the most limited in effectiveness. They only function if the user is logged in and they frequently don't keep junk mail from being delivered to handheld devices, such as Blackberry and Treo units.
A mail-filtering appliance offers a relatively hassle-free alternative. Once implemented, the filter goes to work quietly updating itself and filtering mail. An annual fee to the vendor keeps the software updated and provides support.
Firms with more restricted budgets might elect to use a software package that integrates with the e-mail system.
Open source solutions have proven to be remarkably effective, but they require a depth of knowledge not found in smaller organizations. For these firms, ongoing support is a must.
In the end, the solution implemented must be chosen with an eye on several factors: effectiveness, reliability and cost -- including ongoing maintenance fees. The selection of a good filter should be done in close consultation with a knowledgeable networking professional.
The results can be dramatic. One internal filter rejected 200 pieces of junk e-mail in the first 36 hours it was in place. In one month, it had blocked in excess of 20,000 messages.
Understand that battling junk e-mail is an arms race in which each side is constantly trying to better the other. New and better weapons must always be found.
Steve Bondy is senior systems analyst of Rafte & Co. (www.rafte.com), a legal technology and business consulting organization.
