Kee Hinckley wrote:
I think we get fooled somewhat by the large amount of spam and assume
that we are dealing with a very large sample size; one which should
therefore show standard statistical distributions. If in fact the
actual number of senders (or software/target combinations) is quite
small, than we will in fact *not* see standard distributions--even if
the volume of spam itself is very high. What we are sampling is not
spam, but spammer targets/techniques. Accurately measuring such a
small population may require a much greater distribution of
spamtraps. And it's definitely not a random population. Spammers
specialize. There are some who do nothing but AOL accounts. And as
my experience suggests, there are apparently some who are simply broken.
Well, there are just that many dedicated spammers, then I personally
would make the assumption that at least one of them is on this list. I
know if that were MY business, **I'd** be here.
--
"You are behaving like a man",
is an insult from some women,
a compliment from an good woman.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg