On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Justin Mason wrote:
FWIW, here's the results of a check of 54725 spams and 6680 nonspam mails,
from SpamAssassin's weekly mass-check of network rules (at
http://www.pathname.com/~corpus/NET.age ).
All these messages were received less than 1 month ago, and are taken from
5 people's hand-classified corpora.
SPF records passing HELO strings: 4.98% of spam, 13.29% of ham
SPF records passing the MAIL FROM: 3.72% spam, 18.90% of ham
So it certainly looks like that statement is untrue.
Err, no:
OVERALL% SPAM% HAM% S/O RANK SCORE NAME:0-1
OVERALL% SPAM% HAM% S/O RANK SCORE NAME:1-3
OVERALL% SPAM% HAM% S/O RANK SCORE NAME:3-6
5.377 3.7259 18.9072 0.165 0.23 -0.00 SPF_PASS:0-1
1.361 0.9087 3.3508 0.213 0.25 -0.00 SPF_PASS:1-3
1.749 0.5116 18.4304 0.027 0.34 -0.00 SPF_PASS:3-6
As you see, spam + ham does not add up to overall. Its not clear what
these statistics mean, nor how they were calculated. But your
interpretation is clearly either wrong or at least not supported by the
page.
FYI, this is the original post:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 15:18:42 +0200
From: Markus Stumpf <maex-lists-email-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)Space(_dot_)Net>
To: ietf-mxcomp(_at_)vpnc(_dot_)org
Subject: SPF abused by spammers
Justin Murdock posted this link on the qmail list:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3631350.stm
"CipherTrust [...] found that 34% more spam is passing SPF checks than
legitimate e-mail."
\Maex
--
SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0
Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89)
32356-299
"The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is
reciprocally
proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin"
--Dean
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000