On 5/27/2010 2:22 PM, Steve Atkins wrote: > I'll write up the methodology in a little more detail, but out of my sample
eager to see the method description. not lots of detail, just the gist of what criteria created each of the 4 values. > the initial data is: > > Legitimate email from paypal: > > 72% rejected by ADSP > 28% not rejected > > Phishing emails using "paypal" in the From line: > > 39% rejected by ADSP > 61% rejected. This is pretty interesting data. It declares both FPs and FNs with ADSP, which certainly ain't part of any model I ever heard in support of its use. > It's also based on sender behaviour before there's significant actual > filtering via ADSP. I would expect less mail, both legitimate and > illegitimate, > to be rejected by ADSP as time went on. Given that a standard carries strategic costs in terms of development, implementation and deployment (real dollars and time) one would think that its level of benefit should not decay, or at least not quickly. Since it takes years to become useful it should take quite a few years before it becomes useless... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
