Ok, so the question of when is the best time to "spam" has come up. I cited the ReturnPath 2004 study (http://returnpath.biz/pdf/time_deliverability_0704.pdf), but now the question of when we think the Net is most congested (more likely to see overloaded MX servers and delivery failures?). Anyone have any data on such? Sorry if this question seems offtopic here, but I figure the question of net congestion data is appropriate. -Dennis
Dennis Dayman wrote:
Ok, so the question of when is the best time to "spam" has come up. I cited the ReturnPath 2004 study (http://returnpath.biz/pdf/time_deliverability_0704.pdf), but now the question of when we think the Net is most congested (more likely to see overloaded MX servers and delivery failures?).
Anyone have any data on such? Sorry if this question seems offtopic here, but I figure the question of net congestion data is appropriate.
That "study" seems rather off-base, but explains why the spam patterns have changed over time.... (I'm one of those silly people that has kept my non-worm spam that makes it past basic filters since 1999.) I see a lot of spam in the 2am to 8am EST frame. Phishing seems to peak Fri-Sat instead, presumably to avoid the weekday mitigation departments.... The "study" says that "nearly 20 percent of email does not get delivered to the inbox as intended, largely because it gets mistaken as spam." That's utter hogwash. My Mail Mailguard statistics this year show that for me personally, only 0.1% of messages are false positives! Systemwide, it's only 0.6%! On the false negative side, I'm seeing 4.2% personally, 2.8% systemwide. I conclude the parameters and filters are set a bit liberally, allowing too much spam.
On 12/5/06, William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@gmail.com> wrote:
The "study" says that "nearly 20 percent of email does not get delivered to the inbox as intended, largely because it gets mistaken as spam."
That's utter hogwash. My Mail Mailguard statistics this year show that for me personally, only 0.1% of messages are false positives! Systemwide, it's only 0.6%!
Depends on - 1. How large your network is (how many millions of mailboxes) 2. How you define spam [that study probably defines anything that's can-spam compliant as non-spam? haven't checked]
On Dec 5, 2006, at 10:14 AM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
The "study" says that "nearly 20 percent of email does not get delivered to the inbox as intended, largely because it gets mistaken as spam."
That's utter hogwash. My Mail Mailguard statistics this year show that for me personally, only 0.1% of messages are false positives! Systemwide, it's only 0.6%!
My experience with running an anti-spam service is that 20% is probably not far off for non-technical end-users. I might put it closer at 10%, but it's certainly larger than you would expect. First of all, they never check the stuff that gets dumped into the spam folder in their app or service--so the filters don't get fine tuned. Secondly, they ignore legit bounces (heck, gmail flags all bounces as spam). Thirdly, they tend to delete anything from anyone they don't recognize--that particularly includes receipts for stuff they bought online, and subscriptions that they knowingly or unknowingly signed up for. The main point is that even if they've got a spam filter with a low false positive rate, that doesn't mean all legit mail gets "through". Speaking of bounces. For the past month or so I've been getting daily spam bounce-backs that are from lists very similar to those that I actually subscribe to (i.e. similar technical content). I'm beginning to wonder if the spammers aren't trying to get through to mailing lists that authenticate based on sender email address.
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 10:14:06 EST, William Allen Simpson said:
The "study" says that "nearly 20 percent of email does not get delivered to the inbox as intended, largely because it gets mistaken as spam."
Somewhere around 85% of all mail attempts to us are summarily rejected because the source is in some block list or other, resulting in the spam not being delivered to our user's inboxes as the spammer intended, largely because it is recognized as spam. Statistics are what you read into them....
On 12/5/06 12:00 PM, "Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu" <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 10:14:06 EST, William Allen Simpson said:
The "study" says that "nearly 20 percent of email does not get delivered to the inbox as intended, largely because it gets mistaken as spam."
Somewhere around 85% of all mail attempts to us are summarily rejected because the source is in some block list or other, resulting in the spam not being delivered to our user's inboxes as the spammer intended, largely because it is recognized as spam.
Statistics are what you read into them....
CNN recently reported that 90% of all email on the internet is spam. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/27/uk.spam.reut/index.html David Hester
On Friday 08 December 2006 12:50, you wrote:
CNN recently reported that 90% of all email on the internet is spam. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/27/uk.spam.reut/index.html
I posted my rant a while back to save bandwidth; http://www.circleid.com/posts/misleading_spam_data/
On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 07:50:57AM -0500, David Hester wrote:
CNN recently reported that 90% of all email on the internet is spam. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/27/uk.spam.reut/index.html
CNN is behind the times. We passed 90% junk (spam, viruses, bogus virus warnings, worms, outscatter spam, C/R spam, etc.) a few years ago. Locally, over the last three months, we've been rejecting > 98% of incoming traffic with just two reported problems from internal and external users. And almost all of that rejected traffic TCP-fingerprints as originating from hosts running Windows. ---Rsk
This account sees something over 10x more spam than genuine traffic, almost all of which is autofiltered. On 12/9/06, Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 07:50:57AM -0500, David Hester wrote:
CNN recently reported that 90% of all email on the internet is spam. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/27/uk.spam.reut/index.html
CNN is behind the times. We passed 90% junk (spam, viruses, bogus virus warnings, worms, outscatter spam, C/R spam, etc.) a few years ago. Locally, over the last three months, we've been rejecting > 98% of incoming traffic with just two reported problems from internal and external users.
And almost all of that rejected traffic TCP-fingerprints as originating from hosts running Windows.
---Rsk
participants (9)
-
Alexander Harrowell -
David Hester -
Dennis Dayman -
Kee Hinckley -
Rich Kulawiec -
Simon Waters -
Suresh Ramasubramanian -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu -
William Allen Simpson