#inherits previous disclaimers
There's a paper floating around (can't get to it right now since I'm
on my BB in a beach in goa) that claims that gmail users are smarter
and wealthier than yahoo or hotmail users.
This could be because the gmail userbase hasn't trickled down to the
unwashed masses who aren't your typical early adopter. But, wahtever,
assuming the hypothesis is true, I'd imagine a lot more false clicks
on the "this is not spam"; or more commonly people who don't even
bother deleting the spam from their inbox.
I also agree with Thaths.
Cheeni
On 7/6/07, Thaths <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/6/07, Ved Prakash Vipul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am sure relative competencies (gmail vs yahoo) play a big role, but
> yahoo has a larger attack surface - they have been around much
> longer and hence spammers have more target addresses @yahoo
> and are also more familiar with their AS approach, dev cycles, etc.
#include <not-speaking-for-my-employer.h>
True. And I also suspect that either because of Yahoo's larger
userbase or because they have walled themselves into a particular
system architecture there is a sizable delay between when I mark
something as spam and when yahoo's mx servers start treating similar
incoming email as spam.
As hserus pointed out, google's server farm is of legendary
proportions. And the anti-spam guys at Google are some of the smartest
people I have worked with. Both of these mean that there is a smaller
delay between when I mark something as spam and when similar mails
start getting detected as spam.
I don't think Yahoo's problems are purely technical in nature. Some
very smart people work at Yahoo. I suspect that making radical changes
to a mature service is not very easy. And that is what is keeping
Yahoo from being better at spam detection.
Thaths
--
Homer: He has all the money in the world, but there's one thing he can't
buy.
Marge: What's that?
Homer: (pause) A dinosaur.
-- Homer J. Simpson
Sudhakar Chandra Slacker Without Borders
