A Brief History of Spam – The Evolution of Anti-Spam Technologies

evolution1What history of spam would be complete without a look at the technologies we use every day to try to keep the amount of spam hitting our mailbox to a minimum? In today’s post, we’re going to take a look at how some of those technologies that anti-spam solutions use to keep the majority of the junk from ever hitting our inbox have evolved over time. From the earliest responses to spam, through technologies that even today are in their infancy, these are the tools of the trade, and even the oldest are still in use today. We won’t look at every single technology out there, but we will cover the main ones. Let’s start our look with the original anti-spam tool…

The Delete Key!

For many years, pressing the delete key was the only way users had to avoid spam. Even today, what comparatively little that does make it all the way through to your inbox is best  handled by tossing it in the bit bucket, and the delete key is the way to do that with a satisfying tactile response. 

Keyword Lists

Of course, no programmer is going to be satisfied with a manual process, so early recipients of spam started to code together automated reactions based on keywords. When a message arrived, its content was analyzed, and if it contained any of the words on the “naughty” list, the message was considered spam and either quarantined, or deleted. Even today, admins still use keyword lists to block specific phrases, which have given rise to so many creative ways to spell those spammy words.


The earliest blacklists were maintained individually. If a system sent enough spam, an admin could simply add it to a blacklist, and his or her system would no longer accept messages from the offending host. The Internet is great at sharing, and blacklists gave rise to collaborative blacklists, sometimes called RBLs for Realtime Black Lists, or ORBS for Online Black Lists, or even DNSBL for DNS Black Lists. Email admins can subscribe to theses blacklists, or consult them through lookups in real time, to decide whether a sending system is a legitimate messaging system or a spammer.


Filtering systems use analysis of sending systems, SMTP headers, and subject lines, and message content to decide whether a message is legitimate, or is spam. Heuristics are used to analyze messages for indicators of legitimacy or spam. Bayesian filters can dig deep into a message and adapt over time to changes. You’ve probably seen spam that contains random strings of words or seemingly unrelated paragraphs of text after the spam content. These are the spammers attempts to fool the filters.

Protocol Analysis

The RFCs define how sending and receiving email systems should work. How one system connects to another, the process of establishing an SMTP session, the way systems identify one another, exchange data, and then close the connection are all spelled out. Most legitimate systems adhere strictly to the RFCs in how they behave, but also allow some latitude when other systems do not. Many spammers use programs or scripts that play fast and loose with the RFCs. Protocol analysis can look at how a sending system performs, and identify things that are different between “real” email systems and spammers, such as closing a session with QUIT, and if a message looks to be sent by a spammer, classify received messages as spam rather than delivering to the end user.


There are two main ways that receiving systems can authenticate sending systems to verify whether they are legitimate messaging systems or not. Sender Policy Framework (SPF) uses text records in DNS to identify all systems that should legitimately be sending mail for a domain. DomainKeys Identified Mail uses digital signatures to verify the authenticity of a message, again relying upon text records in DNS to circulate the public key of the sending system. Both have their advocates and opponents, and neither is as widely used today as I’d like to see. Both also either have to be a part of a series of tests, or you run the risk of denying significant amounts of legitimate mail since they are not yet widely adopted.

Of course, today’s anti-spam systems are a multi-layered combination of many different technologies, each playing its own important part in the overall effort to block spam. In our next post, we’ll talk about those combination approaches and how they are the most effective solution we have to block spam.

Written by Casper Manes

I currently work as a Senior Messaging Consultant for one of the premier consulting firms in the world, I cut my teeth on Exchange 5.0, and have worked with every version of Microsoft’s awesome email package since then, as well as MHS, Sendmail, and MailEnable systems. I've written dozens of articles on behalf of my past employers, their partners, and others, and I finally decided to embrace blogging and social media, so please follow me on Twitter @caspermanes if you enjoy my posts.


  1. Eve Leigh · March 26, 2013

    I really laughed at the Delete key as an anti-spam tool but in fact it really is! What is more, it is still used today! :) I guess tools evolved as the volumes of spam increased and the last three – i.e. the most sophisticated ones are relatively recent additions to the anti-spam arsenal. I wonder what’s next? What more tools can we come up with?

  2. Candace Jane · March 28, 2013

    I had the same reaction as Eve Leigh. The Delete key being included in the list surprised me. But I do agree that it is one of the most common anti-spam “weapons”. I guess its popularity can be traced to its simplicity and effectiveness. It’s inevitable, however, to expect the creation of more complicated anti-spam technologies as spammers are also becoming more and more advanced.

    As spammers become more confident about what they can do, anti-spam technologies should continue to be assessed, improved and developed. I believe that educating the online public will also significantly help the fight against spamming.

  3. Dominic · March 29, 2013

    Seriously, what’s with the website’s obsession to history? It’s not that I’m complaining—I do find these tidbits very interesting. But nonetheless, it still increases my curiosity. I really don’t know which types of the methods I had used before. I think I started with the delete key as well before I moved on to filtering. Thankfully, when I was in college, I had an awesome professor who taught us a lot about spam and how to protect our e-mails. You can consider him now as a forward thinker, because it’s only in recent years when spam education has become more prominent.

  4. Lloyd · April 2, 2013

    @Eve: It should be an eye for an eye when it comes to spam, so as the nature of spamming change, so should the methods that deal with it. I have to agree, though, that deleting spam still remains in vogue.

    @Candace: Well, I wasn’t at all surprised because I do use it as well, but I also go beyond it including reporting spam to the network and using anti-filtering solutions. I recommend the latter even if you’re not running a website or a small online business. It’s now best to protect yourself comprehensively.

    @Dominic: I’m actually enjoying all these history posts!

Leave A Reply