On 2018-02-20 (19:42 MST), Rob McEwen <r...@invaluement.com> wrote: > > I ran stats on a sample set of a few thousand mailboxes, over a period of > several hours today (mostly during business hours for these particular > organizations who use these mailboxes) - and this produced a combined 24K > legit messages, and 5K spams (I'm guessing that most systems have more spams > per amount of hams? But those were the numbers for this server.)
goo.gl (and other shorteners) are used for far more than email. That said, most my incoming email is rejected long before it get to any sort of URI lookups based on just the transaction information, That is to say, upwards of 90% of incoming mail is rejected before DATA. > 286 total spams blocked that had a shortner, That's not enough to have any sort of reliable statistical data. > 187 total legit messages had a hit on at least one of hundreds of URL > shortners So the use of a shortner is a poor spam indicator. Even in your corpus, and a negligible indicator even when specifically looking at goo.gl. > Google's shortner is DOMINATING in its spam usage, where 92% (262 of 286) of > ALL spam that contained shortners used Google. But about 25% of goo.gl containing email is not spam, by your own numbers. So, a very poor metric. -- "You can speak soon and write like a graduate college if me let you help for a day of 15 minutes" "1963" Issue #1
