On 5/27/2010 2:22 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
I'll write up the methodology in a little more detail, but out of my sample
eager to see the method description. not lots of detail, just the gist of what
criteria created each of the 4 values.
the initial data is:
Legitimate email from paypal:
72% rejected by ADSP
28% not rejected
Phishing emails using "paypal" in the From line:
39% rejected by ADSP
61% rejected.
This is pretty interesting data. It declares both FPs and FNs with ADSP, which
certainly ain't part of any model I ever heard in support of its use.
It's also based on sender behaviour before there's significant actual
filtering via ADSP. I would expect less mail, both legitimate and
illegitimate,
to be rejected by ADSP as time went on.
Given that a standard carries strategic costs in terms of development,
implementation and deployment (real dollars and time) one would think that its
level of benefit should not decay, or at least not quickly. Since it takes
years to become useful it should take quite a few years before it becomes
useless...
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html