It doesn't matter. The nature is transient. If you make spam improbable in
one category, it'll get flooded because it's improbable. If you try to base
your anti-spam tactics on the statistics of today, tomorrow it'll be
different.
-----Original Message-----
From: asrg-admin(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [mailto:asrg-admin(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]On
Behalf Of
Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 2:57 PM
To: asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: [Asrg] Measurements on spam
All,
It would be usefull to see some empirical info that measures the
following:
1) Spam transport mechanisms
Percentage of spam sent through open relays
Percentage of spam that has a bogus from address
Percentage of spam that does not comply with RFC 822
2) Spam subject matter
Section 419 Fraud
Pornography
Consumer scams
Spm to sell spam
3) Evidence of anti-spam techniques
Mutating subject lines
It would be good if some of the people with access to large spam
corpuses could take a look at these. Although I don't think that we
necessarily need to know much more than you would get from lumping stuff
into buckets of 0-5%, 5-10%, 10-50%, 50%-90%, 90-95% and 95-100%. Either
something is common or it is not.
In addition there are a bunch of phenomena that I think deserve a bit more
investigation. One of these is bogus spam. There is an advert for septic
tank fluid going round that is clearly not sent to send septic tank fluid. I
think that it is being sent to try to sell spam, legitimizing the concept,
leading idiots to think it must work etc.
Phill
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg