"Sauer, Damon" <Damon(_dot_)Sauer(_at_)BellSouth(_dot_)com> wrote:
Regardless of how the information is "meant" to be used. Any spammer
can point at these numbers and say- 50% of our junk is getting through <best
Homer voice> Whoo Hoo!.
Do we really care about the opinions of spammers?
I believe that you are not looking at control sets in the correct
light. In ANY scientific study you MUST have control sets or the information
is invalid.
Nonsense. Data collection doesn't require control sets.
Data *analysis* may use control sets, but even that depends on how
you analyze the data. There is no control set required to analyze the
data gathered from asking "how much spam is received by your domain?"
I submit to you that a control set would be anyone that has no
anti-spam functionality.
Even that would be just one more data point in the collection, and
not necessarily a control set.
And that's a pretty bad control set. Why not use the same people
for data and control sets? Collect data while they're filtering spam,
and then collect data while they're not. Such a methodology is
significantly better than what you're proposing.
So, your numbers would be compared to the control set. i.e. An entire
domain with no users that accepts all email (honeypot) would be sufficient I
think.
I think I'll stop here. I *completely* disagree with your opinions
on data collection and analysis methodology. I'll appeal to
authority, and let my background as a published nuclear physicist
stand for itself.
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg