Petri Helenius wrote:
There is also a lot of "background Internet radiation" coming from p2p
applications which seem to remember their peers for a week or two. These
usually account for most of the unidirectional traffic knocking on doors
unanswered. (not counting large DDoS).
Martian packets, i
> There is also a lot of "background Internet radiation" coming
> from p2p
> applications which seem to remember their peers for a week or
> two. These
> usually account for most of the unidirectional traffic
> knocking on doors
> unanswered. (not counting large DDoS).
>
> Pete
While worki
William B. Norton wrote:
For those who say things like "can't define 'junk' precisely", I would
agree, but I think we also can agree that we all have a general idea
of what junk is. Just looking for round #'s really. It isn't 0%, and
it isn't 90% (although it seems that way sometimes).
I would
On 5-mei-04, at 21:55, Steve Gibbard wrote:
If a few of you can stop being so pedantic for a second, the definition
looks pretty easy to me: traffic unlikely to be wanted by the
recipient.
Presumably, if it's being sent that means somebody wanted to send it,
so
the senders' desires are a pretty m
[discussing the traffic statistics reported at http://netflow.internet2.edu/ ]
#Note that this is biased by a very significant factor - we're looking here at
#Internet2 traffic *only*, which basically ends up meaning that email isn't seen
#unless both the sender *and* recipient are at one of the
On Wed, 05 May 2004 16:56:59 EDT, Marshall Eubanks said:
> Look at Table's 6, 7 and 8 - email, for example, is 1/2 %, so even if all email
> is spam, it's not that big a flow. Unidentified is typically about 30%, but
> most of that is probably file sharing.
Note that this is biased by a very sig
On Wed, 05 May 2004 12:55:04 PDT, Steve Gibbard said:
> Presumably, if it's being sent that means somebody wanted to send it, so
> the senders' desires are a pretty meaningless metric.
Actually, there's two cases:
1) the sender intended to send it, so the sender's desires don't matter
as we "know
With all the spam, infected e-mails, DOS attacks, ultimately blackholed
traffic, etc. I wonder if there has been a study that quantifies
What percentage of the Internet traffic is junk?
Record Broken: 82% of U.S. Email is Spam
http://www.esecurityplanet.com/trends/article.php/3349921
-Hank
> With all the spam, infected e-mails, DOS attacks, ultimately blackholed
> traffic, etc. I wonder if there has been a study that quantifies
>
> What percentage of the Internet traffic is junk?
QED
Bill,
> What percentage of the Internet traffic is junk?
I think two things needs to be clarified:
1. What is "junk"
(my $0.02: "junk" is what is as follows
and associated by-product traffic of:
- Viruses
- Worms
- Attacks of all kinds including DOS/dDOS
- Spam
- Crapware (
> Perhaps now I'm the one being pedantic, but you're confusing "somebody"
> with the owner of the resources involved in the sending.
Look, we're the ones asking what percentage of Internet traffic is junk, so
we're the somebody. We know what we mean and can do a reasonably good job of
ex
> Steve Gibbard wrote:
> If a few of you can stop being so pedantic for a second,
> the definition looks pretty easy to me: traffic unlikely
> to be wanted by the recipient.
This looks good to me although it also needs to include _return_ traffic
from junk traffic (say, you flood a target with IC
Perhaps now I'm the one being pedantic, but you're confusing "somebody"
with the owner of the resources involved in the sending.
What I said was, "presumably, if it's being sent that means *somebody*
wanted to send it."
Otherwise, we have to consider somebody doing what would otherwise be
legiti
> I'm not sure that I'd agree with this statement. What
> about the traffic from compromised sources? The pps
> floods or spam emails are not being created with the
> knowledge of the source, so it would be hard to say
> that the source "wanted" to send it.
Exactly. A great example is
At 01:56 PM 5/5/2004, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Look at Table's 6, 7 and 8 - email, for example, is 1/2 %, so even if all
email
is spam, it's not that big a flow. Unidentified is typically about 30%, but
most of that is probably file sharing.
Thanks Marshall - a few others have said (paraphrasing):
Whenever I hear a question like this, I think of the weekly I2
netflow reports
http://netflow.internet2.edu/weekly/
http://netflow.internet2.edu/weekly/20040426/
Look at Table's 6, 7 and 8 - email, for example, is 1/2 %, so even if all email
is spam, it's not that big a flow. Unidentified is t
--- Steve Gibbard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If a few of you can stop being so pedantic for a
> second, the definition
> looks pretty easy to me: traffic unlikely to be
> wanted by the recipient.
> Presumably, if it's being sent that means somebody
> wanted to send it, so
> the senders' desi
At 12:55 PM 5/5/2004, Steve Gibbard wrote:
If a few of you can stop being so pedantic for a second, the definition
looks pretty easy to me: traffic unlikely to be wanted by the recipient.
Presumably, if it's being sent that means somebody wanted to send it, so
the senders' desires are a pretty mean
Jeff Shultz wrote:
So instead of trying to determine what percentage of internet traffic
is junk, why don't we set up categories (I saw someone make a start at
it a couple of messages back) and figure out what percentage of traffic
fits under each category. We can come up with our own opinions as t
If a few of you can stop being so pedantic for a second, the definition
looks pretty easy to me: traffic unlikely to be wanted by the recipient.
Presumably, if it's being sent that means somebody wanted to send it, so
the senders' desires are a pretty meaningless metric.
The harder pieces are goi
So instead of trying to determine what percentage of internet traffic
is junk, why don't we set up categories (I saw someone make a start at
it a couple of messages back) and figure out what percentage of traffic
fits under each category. We can come up with our own opinions as to
which of those c
Very very very near to, but not quite 100%. Since almost all of the traffic
on the Internet isn't sourced by or destined for me, I consider it junk.
Also remember that to a packet kid, that insane flood of packets destined
for his target is the most important traffic in the world. And to a spamm
It might be interesting to get a sense of percentages of traffic that
are "undesireable" (spam, DDOS, etc), "administrative" (logging, snmp,
rmon, etc), and "user traffic".
On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 01:35:09PM -0500, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
>
> William B. Norton wrote:
>
> >With all the s
William B. Norton wrote:
With all the spam, infected e-mails, DOS attacks, ultimately blackholed
traffic, etc. I wonder if there has been a study that quantifies
What percentage of the Internet traffic is junk?
I don't know the answer in any case, but I would need a definition
for "Internet traff
24 matches
Mail list logo
