On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 11:10:14 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Justin Mason) wrote:
> >John Andersen writes: >> On Sunday 03 September 2006 01:03, Nigel Frankcom wrote: >> > On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 10:25:40 -0700 (PDT), "John D. Hardin" >> > >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, jdow wrote: >> > >> Hm, I have a suspicion that the spam is being targeted quite >> > >> differently then. Until the end of June I used to get about 250 to >> > >> 300 spams a day. I am down to 90 to 150 per day now. It's unreal. >> > >> Note that I am quite sincerely pleased by this development. >> > > >> > >...you think maybe they are listwashing SA list members? >> > >> > I don't think so, very little of the spam is aimed at my address as >> > published on the SA list (cue a flood) :-D >> >> Er, but wouldn't THAT be suggestive of ListWashing? > >One thing I have noticed over time is that there can be major differences >in spam levels for different addresses and different sites, even without >list-washing. > >I think this is indicative that there are a smaller number of spam >controlling groups controlling spam targeting and volume, but operating >with huge bot armies -- so when one decides to stop spamming a particular >site (due to spamtrap fears, for example), that can cause a huge >reduction for that site. > >--j. That's an interesting point; the sites that don't get hit particularly hard here do have spamtraps set up on them. The ones that get hammered don't...yet. That's certainly one line I'll pursue. I've been meaning to add the spamtraps to those sites anyway, but time and work constraints have kept pushing tat job down the list. With that in mind I'll be adding them today. I'll publish any major changes in numbers. KR Nigel
