At 07:39 30-04-2007, John Leslie wrote:
First, I'd like to violate one of the rules here, by including some
actual data ;^(
We run a number of mail-servers here, several of which apply the
same anti-spam rule and return a 5xy error including a reference to
a jlc.net webpage. I collected one week's data for that one rule:
5xy responses sent: 368,074
webpage accesses: 2
(Actually, those two were from the same IP address, less than
five minutes apart.)
I claim this data supports my contention that folks don't _use_
the NDNs that they get. (Yes, I know, the clients we gave that 5xy
to may not have delivered the actual text in the NDN they generated.)
That is if we assume that these 5xy responses generated NDNs at the
sender's end. Compromised/virused-infected hosts don't do
that. Most of the people may not be bothered with the NDNs as they
don't understand it. One of these senders found it worth it to go to
the webpage to find out more.
I believe any data we could collect involving "typical" users would
show the same trend: 99.9% of NDNs are not read. (What folks _do_,
in my experience, is call the intended recipient and complain, "your
spam filter is broken" -- if they do anything at all, that is...)
Yes, that would be the trend for the typical user. I don't have any
conclusive statistics to show that.
It's not always possible to call the intended recipient. That's
where the NDN may come in handy as the sender can forward that to
their support desk for help. If we want to achieve that with log
files, we would have to process the information in near-real time.
Sending an NDN which has only one chance in a million of conveying
the right information shouldn't be touted as "properly reporting".
Yes.
Regards,
-sm