On 9/12/22 14:39, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
I think if that were true, the amount of spam coming out of them would
be much
higher. Unfortunately, even a 1% false-negative rate would still result
in a large
volume.
I think there may also be a material difference in the types of spammers
and spam that
are sent from Gmail to small providers, much less to individual server
owners. There's
a lot of specialization among spammers, since what's needed to get
passed specific
filters at scale varies greatly, and is a constant battle, so different
targets look very
different in the methods... even if the peddled products or scams are
often the same.
Why has Google recently made so painfully difficult for the rest of the
Internet to make them aware of gmail-originated spam?
A working abuse address that can parse ARF makes sense.
A web form with multiple fields requiring several cut/paste operations
sure seems like a means to deliberately make it very difficult to alert
Google to a spammer on their network.
Even Spamcop has given up.
By making it very time-consuming and difficult to alert Google to their
spam problem, it allows them to claim that complaints are way down,
therefore spam must be way down. Hint: it isn't.
There should be enough AI expertise within the organization to come up
with a scheme to parse reports to abuse@ . The fact that a business
decision was made to make spam reporting very difficult speaks volumes.
--
Jay Hennigan - [email protected]
Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
503 897-8550 - WB6RDV
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
[email protected]
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
