At 4:37 PM -0400 7/31/03, Alan DeKok wrote:
> The trend is either up, flat, or down. According to the linear
regression trendline, the trend is down. If there is a statistical
> definition of "significant" then of course lets apply it. But if we're
It's been a long time since I took all my stats courses, but one
thing I'm sure of. A sample size of one address out of several
hundred million, with no control, is not significant.
Set up two addresses at the same domain. Advertise them with
identical exposure on the same web pages and the same newsgroups, let
the spam build up to a certain level, then start bouncing one and not
the other. *Then* we might have some interesting statistics. Every
year I bounce twice as many messages as the year before. Is that
proof that bouncing doesn't work? Nope. I need to compare that
number to addresses receiving similar amounts of similar spam that
don't bounce.
--
Kee Hinckley
http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society
I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg