This is also my experience. Spam has dropped off radically since December.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Fisher Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 11:47 AM To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com Subject: Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Huge reduction in hold queue My spam numbers peaked in December and the total amount of spam has declined since. Overall percentage went from 75% of all e-mail in December to 67% in March. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Darin Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <Declude.JunkMail@declude.com> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 10:09 AM Subject: Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Huge reduction in hold queue > Sorry Heinrich....<grin> > > Maybe this is just payback for the sudden ~4x increase we saw last > fall...our levels have now dropped back to what they were prior to > mid-October. > > Darin. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Heinrich Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <Declude.JunkMail@declude.com> > Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 10:57 AM > Subject: Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Huge reduction in hold queue > > > Hello Darin, > > it seems that i got a lot of the mails you are missing ;-( > > Our volume increased about 25% last month and the number of SPAM increased > about 64%. > Our spam detection rate is about 98% and the overall spamrate has incresed > from 40% to 50% last month. > > Heinrich > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Darin Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <Declude.JunkMail@declude.com> > Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 4:47 PM > Subject: Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Huge reduction in hold queue > > >> Just as a followup, I have confirmed that we have had a 15%+ drop in >> incoming volume. If that is mostly spam, then that would indicate almost >> a >> 20% drop in spam. If most of that is in our hold range (about 40% of >> incoming spam ends up in our hold queue), then it could account for half >> or >> more of the drop in held spam. >> >> Also, we're definitely seeing a significant increase in detection rates >> for >> the tests listed below, so a lot less is ending up in our hold queue, >> despite raising the delete limit. >> >> Anyone else seeing a similar drop in incoming spam and an increase in >> detection rates for the tests listed below? >> >> Darin. >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Darin Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <Declude.JunkMail@declude.com> >> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:56 AM >> Subject: Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Huge reduction in hold queue >> >> >> You know, I think was misleading/inaccurate in how I said it. I really >> meant >> accuracy, not detection rate. I was thinking detection rate as the >> number >> of messages detected as spam by the test that were actually spam, but I >> should have said accuracy. Sorry for the confusion...language is a funny >> thing... >> >> These are the best tests we run, in terms of catching the most spam, but >> they're not catching at the percentages below. There are others that are >> highly accurate as well, but these catch the most volume. >> >> My apologies again for the confusion. >> >> Darin. >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Pete McNeil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "Darin Cox" <Declude.JunkMail@declude.com> >> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:36 AM >> Subject: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Huge reduction in hold queue >> >> >> On Thursday, March 31, 2005, 9:50:05 AM, Darin wrote: >> >> DC> That is very significant, and could explain what I'm seeing. I'm >> going >> to >> DC> increase my delete weight a bit for a while to make sure there are no >> high >> DC> FPs. >> >> DC> I do see the following detection rates from yesterday (3/30) >> >> DC> AHBL 97.4% >> DC> CBL 99.9% >> DC> CSMA 97.1% >> DC> CSMA-SBL 93.4% >> DC> JAMMDNSBL 76.0% >> DC> PSBL 96.9% >> DC> SBL 99.5% >> DC> SENDERDB-BL 96.4% >> DC> SNIFFER 98.7% >> DC> SPAMCOP 99.7% >> DC> UCEPROTECT1 100% >> DC> UCEPROTECT2 97.2% >> >> DC> rates for all seem to have increased significantly over the past >> couple >> of >> DC> days. >> >> WOW! That's weird. I do not show that at all and I've never seen those >> tests throw those kinds of numbers (except SNF looks about right): >> >> http://www.sortmonster.com/MDLP/MDLP-Example-Short.html >> >> For example (a quick spot check) - >> >> Data through last noon to midnight-- >> >> AHBL shows up at about 22% (21.8409) >> SPAMCOP shows up at about 64% (63.5114) >> UCEPROTECCMUL sows up at about 42% (41.6237) >> UCEPROTECRDO shows up at about 48% (48.0324) >> >> Long range data through last midnight-- >> >> AHBL shows up at about 16% (16.111) >> SPAMCOP shows up at about 62% (62.3942) >> UCEPROTECCMUL shows up at about 42% (41.7421) >> UCEPROTECRDO shows up at about 49% (48.6102) >> >> All in all these indicate nominal performance. >> >> Most likely there is something special about the mix of spam you are >> getting, something wrong with your reporting process, or something >> else going on that we haven't thought of. >> >> To be thorough I also checked some of the MDLP reports from other >> systems that are beta testing it. With few exceptions they show >> numbers similar to mine w/ regard to these tests. >> >> If I were you I would not make any substantive changes until I tracked >> down what was going on. No need to introduce additional variables by >> changing things ;-) >> >> DC> BTW, I sent to the Junkmail in part so others could comment on >> DC> other tests that may have significantly changed. >> >> It's all good :-) >> >> _M >> >> >> >> --- >> 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. >> >> --- >> 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. >> --------------------------------------------------- >> This E-mail was scanned for viruses by CAD-FEM GmbH >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------- > This E-mail was scanned for viruses by CAD-FEM GmbH > > > ********************************************************************* > This message and any attachment are confidential. If you are not the > intended recipient, please telephone or email the sender and delete > this message and any attachment from your system. If you are not the > intended recipient you must not copy this message or attachment or > disclose the contents to any other person. > > For further information about CADFEM please see our website: > http://www.cadfem.de. > ********************************************************************** > > --- > 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. > > --- > 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. > --- 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. --- 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.
