At 01:14 AM 8/7/2003, John Fenley wrote:
From: "Peter Kay" <peter(_at_)titankey(_dot_)com>
-----Original Message-----
>From: Elric Pedder [mailto:elric(_at_)novitraq(_dot_)com]
>Given all that, I also fail to see how such responses would >actually
reduce the spam volume. Perhaps when we have more >data this will
become clearer.
It's the "more data" where this whole group falls on its face. There's
so many of us that are so quick to throw in our $0.02, but oh-so-slow to
come forward with some real effort. As you probably know, we've had an
open offer to work with others that want to assist w/ this "more data"
part, and the list has been un-surprisingly quiet in those regards.
I offered to wager $1 with one of the members off-list that no one would
step forward. That member wisely did not accept my wager. :(
Since the 12th of July I have been tracking my spam volumes at a poisoned
account.
on the 20th I decided to start unsubscribing from the mail I received.
Since the 25th I have unsubscribed from every piece of mail that I could.
I have seen spam volumes decrease from 20-30 per day to 10-15 per day over
the course of 2 weeks.
I see this as relevant, but its impact on long term volumes is still to be
determined.
I believe piece by piece unsubscribe should be evaluated as one type of
spam control method evaluated in the proposed simultaneous and long term
comparison of spam control systems.
Attached is my data short term though it is.
I started doing this as well today to a poisoned account and we'll see what
happens. HOWEVER, I would like to suggest that someone organizes or
coordinates a large-scale study of "unsubscribes", so we can settle this issue.
Yakov
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg