Sadly, still, it's a moving target. If one does, then they all can. Spam is
like life. It evolves to fit a niche, and it evolves to survive.
Fortunately, spam differs in that people propagate it, it doesn't propagate
itself. (Excluding of course the MS Outlook fiasco, but that will only exist
until a viable OSS groupware component emerges. A change of client is
easy...)
20% is irrelevant. If it can be circumvented, it will be.
Spammers are very much like script kiddies. If there is an exploit for a
system, you have to patch it because the exploit is a nice and easily
packaged implementation fit for general consumption.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com]
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 4:38 PM
To: 'Jason Hihn'; Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: [Asrg] Measurements on spam
I was hoping we could use the figures to get away from discussions like
'that does not work 99% of spam comes through open relays'.
Evidence that 20% or more of spams already have countermeasures against a
technique is pretty useful.
Phill
-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Hihn [mailto:jhihn(_at_)paytimepayroll(_dot_)com]
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 4:08 PM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: [Asrg] Measurements on spam
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.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg