RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Fw: BLOCK,MISC: MONKEYS.COM: Now retired f rom spam fighting rom spam fighting
There's the root of the problem: spamming works. If they didn't make money from spam, they wouldn't do it. Apparently the 1% that are still ignorant about spam make it worth while to anger the 99%. (I wonder what the real ratio is?) I tend to forget that to me it's an annoyance and that to them it's money in the bank. --- [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.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Fw: BLOCK,MISC: MONKEYS.COM: Now retired f rom spam fighting rom spam fighting
There's the root of the problem: spamming works. Well, for me looks like also spam defense works :) We've processed 37347 incomming messages in the last 14 days. 17878 of them was hold as spam. Our operators manualy check for false positives and have requeued 15 messages in 14 days. I don't know exactly how much spam passed our filters but watching to my personal inbox I've recieved 5 spam messages in the last 14 days. In the same time I can count 401 hold spam messages addressed to my inbox. Calculate it ho you want: Spam defense works! The question is how good it works without public available spam blacklists. Markus --- [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.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Fw: BLOCK,MISC: MONKEYS.COM: Now retired f rom spam fighting rom spam fighting
| 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.
