|> There's the root of the problem:  spamming works.
|
|
|Well, for me looks like also spam defense works :)

|Calculate it ho you want: Spam defense works! 
|The question is how good it works without public available 
|spam blacklists.

I think pretty well... (I'm biased). 

Scott publishes monthly statistics on capture rates from his spam traps.
A number of tests in those statistics don't use any RBLs. I know that
Message Sniffer doesn't, for example, and consistently posts well into
the 90s for capture rate. False positives are reported as being very low
(I know this is our internal experience) - particularly after some
tuning.

We publish statistics on the number of false positives that are reported
to us. These numbers aren't a perfect representation but they do look
pretty good:

http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Performance/FalseReportsRates.
jsp

Also, naïve Bayesian systems, when applied at a specific mailbox, are
reported to work very well.

I'm sure that even if all DNSBLs went away the other systems available
would remain quite effective.

I'm also sure that more robust distributed / collaborative systems are
on the way which won't be susceptible to ddos attacks.

_M

---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

---
This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list.  To
unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail".  The archives can be found
at http://www.mail-archive.com.

Reply via email to