On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Miles Fidelman wrote:
It occurs to me that a lot of people on this list might have that sort of
quantitative data - so... any comments?
You might find this useful.
http://zebulon.miester.org/spam/
Justin
Interesting pattern. Kind of looks like cutting z's. :-)
curtis
just me said:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Miles Fidelman wrote:
It occurs to me that a lot of people on this list might have that sort
of quantitative data - so... any comments?
Regards,
Miles Fidelman
For my little
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, just me wrote:
For my little corner:
http://mrtg.snark.net/spam/
It seems 1:1 is the norm these days, at least at my scale.
How do you get your mail delivery attempts to occur so linearly? :)
I think something's busted with your mrtg script...
Here's the stats for one
Andy Dills wrote:
How do you get your mail delivery attempts to occur so linearly? :)
I think something's busted with your mrtg script...
Depends on which stats he wants. He's showing the total since midnight
in the graph instead of the count since the last run.
-Jack
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Jack Bates wrote:
Andy Dills wrote:
How do you get your mail delivery attempts to occur so linearly? :)
I think something's busted with your mrtg script...
Depends on which stats he wants. He's showing the total since midnight
in the graph instead of the count
Not a lot to break; here's the script in its entirety:
#!/usr/local/bin/bash
grep -c mailer=local /var/log/maillog
egrep -c '[EMAIL PROTECTED]|reject|njabl' /var/log/maillog
A lot of mail traffic on my box is mailing lists; perhaps thats why
the graphs look so smooth.
matto
On Thu, 19 Jun
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Andy Dills wrote:
Yeah, mea culpa :)
Don't know why you have your graphs set up that way, unless you have no
other way of reporting aggregate scores for the day...
http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~oetiker/webtools/mrtg/reference.html
In the absence of 'gauge' or
Hi Folks,
Someone on the cybertelecom list raised a question about the real costs of
handling spam (see below) in terms of computer resources, transmission,
etc. This dovetailed a discussion I had recently with several former BBN
colleagues - where someone pointed out that email is not a very
While the question (metrics for operators, backbone-to-retail, spam) is
current in the asrg list, the question is posed by (informally) by the
(outgoing) secretary of the ICANN Registrar's Constituency to a listserv
in the AOL playpen. The question is not current in the Registrar's
Constituency,
Miles Fidelman wrote:
Since a lot of the arguments about spam hinge on the various costs it
imposes on ISPs, it seems like it would be a good thing to get a handle on
quantitative data.
While there is a cost to ISPs reguarding spam, the highest cost is still
on the recipient. End User's who are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jack Bates) writes:
While there is a cost to ISPs reguarding spam, the highest cost is still
on the recipient. End User's who are outraged by their children getting
pornography in email, or having trouble finding their legitimate emails
due to the sheer volume of spam
18, 2003 2:04 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT: question re. the Volume of unwanted email (fwd)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jack Bates) writes:
While there is a cost to ISPs reguarding spam, the highest cost is still
on the recipient. End User's who are outraged by their children getting
on 6/18/2003 9:51 AM Miles Fidelman wrote:
Someone on the cybertelecom list raised a question about the real costs
of handling spam (see below) in terms of computer resources,
transmission, etc. This dovetailed a discussion I had recently with
several former BBN colleagues - where someone
value is dependant on the individual. Unfortunately, end user's cannot
just highlight and hit delete on spam. They must look at almost every
Isn´t highlight and hit delete exactly what has been implemented since
Mozilla 1.3 and works with almost perfect accuracy after you give it a few
dozen
Petri Helenius wrote:
Isn´t highlight and hit delete exactly what has been implemented since
Mozilla 1.3 and works with almost perfect accuracy after you give it a few
dozen messages to build up the good and bad database with?
Actually, I find that 1.3 and 1.4 still have issues with determining
On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 17:09, Jack Bates wrote:
The worst part of it is that spam is quickly becoming unreadable,
so that legitimate emails that are readable are the emails more likely
filtered.
-Jack
On the upside, this means replacing the spam filter with a spell checker
will move us
Actually, I find that 1.3 and 1.4 still have issues with determining
spam. While fairly decent, one still has to go through looking for false
positives. The other issue is that spammers have been doing a good job
at designing emails to fool filters. I'm starting to see more and more
spam
Jack Bates wrote:
Petri Helenius wrote:
Isn´t highlight and hit delete exactly what has been implemented since
Mozilla 1.3 and works with almost perfect accuracy after you give it a
few
dozen messages to build up the good and bad database with?
Actually, I find that 1.3 and 1.4 still have
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Miles Fidelman wrote:
It occurs to me that a lot of people on this list might have that sort of
quantitative data - so... any comments?
Regards,
Miles Fidelman
For my little corner:
http://mrtg.snark.net/spam/
It seems 1:1 is the norm these days, at least at my
19 matches
Mail list logo
