Re: PLUG: PMAS
- From: bill@xxxxxxxxxxx (Bill Gunshannon)
- Date: 17 Jun 2007 01:04:36 GMT
In article <f51tn6$1qo$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
david20@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
In article <46745B94.3050108@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Bill Gunshannon wrote:Do Comcast quarantine suspected spam or tag it or are you not seeing it because
In article <f51cb9$478$1@xxxxxxxxx>,
helbig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) writes:
In article <1378bo75v2pl6a1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mark Daniel
<mark.daniel@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
And I thought the SPAM load was moderating (silly me).
Looking for a specific e-mail I thought I should have received, I just
opened my PreciseMail Anti-SPAM quarrantined messages page to search for
it (without success). I don't do this often and haven't for a while
(obviously not since the last upgrade). Towards the top of the
2,967,263 byte report page is a (new to me) item "(Messages: 4605)".
That's four and one half thousand quarrantined SPAM in the past 14 days!
This is something like 328 per day!!
That seems about average. I've resorted to using ZEN.SPAMHAUS.ORG as an
RBL. That gets rid of the lion's share.
So, how bad does it have to get before I can expect people to start
looking at my suggestion for a social solution rather than technical
solutions that may hide the problem but certainly don't reduce it or
the load it puts on the system?
bill
Several years ago, I read that fewer than 200 men were responsible for
90% of the spam. If this is true, perhaps the solution is to ask the
Mafia to deal with the problem, pro bono publico! Even if we had to
take up a collection to pay them, it would be worth it.
Actually, Comcast seems to be using a very good spam filter; I don't get
very much spam. Most of the advertising I get is from outfits I've done
business with; e.g. Corel, Amazon, Cyberguys, DeLorme, etc.
they are deleting it ?
If the latter then you are probably also having some legitimate mail deleted.
I don't think any provider of Anti-spam content scanning software claims more
than a 98% accuracy rating which of course means they get it wrong for two
messages out of every hundred.
That is one of the biggest and growing problems. You really have two
potential losses of customers. One is the false positives from Anti-
SPAM software, much of which may not even be within your control. The
other is this idea of munging email addresses. I work with people who
actually teach this stuff and have been working with computers longer
than most people. If they hit reply and the message bounces they don't
have a clue why and couldn't possibly look at an email address and tell
that it is not someone's real address. And as for finding a munged address
in the body of the message, deciphering it and then using it to send a
message. Not a snowballs chance!!!
So, because of actions that people are being forced to use today because
of SPAM, how much business is being lost? And, as things stand now, it
will only get worse because as fast as people come up with supposed anti-
SPAM methods the SPAMers find a way around it.
So, what is the technological solution?
bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: PLUG: PMAS
- From: Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
- Re: PLUG: PMAS
- From: P. Sture
- Re: PLUG: PMAS
- From: Ron Johnson
- Re: PLUG: PMAS
- References:
- PLUG: PMAS
- From: Mark Daniel
- Re: PLUG: PMAS
- From: Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
- Re: PLUG: PMAS
- From: Bill Gunshannon
- Re: PLUG: PMAS
- From: Richard B. Gilbert
- Re: PLUG: PMAS
- From: david20
- PLUG: PMAS
- Prev by Date: Re: DECwindows Newbie
- Next by Date: Re: Of CERT and VMS
- Previous by thread: Re: PLUG: PMAS
- Next by thread: Re: PLUG: PMAS
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|