Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus Call - submission via posting (was Re: Iteration #3))

Paul Russell <prussell@nd.edu> Tue, 09 February 2010 15:48 UTC

Return-Path: <prussell@nd.edu>
X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF7B03A72BF for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 07:48:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.185
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.185 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aahqis368rZU for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 07:48:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx-p2.cc.nd.edu (mx-p2.cc.nd.edu [129.74.250.58]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE6123A7207 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 07:48:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta-2.cc.nd.edu (mta-2.cc.nd.edu [129.74.250.37]) by mx-p2.cc.nd.edu (Switch-3.3.0/Switch-3.3.0) with ESMTP id o19FogFi028633 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 10:50:42 -0500
Received: from [172.19.226.51] (nat20.cc.nd.edu [129.74.4.120]) (authenticated bits=0) by mta-2.cc.nd.edu (Switch-3.3.0/Switch-3.3.0) with ESMTP id o19Fnx0V010071 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 10:50:02 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <4B718429.50005@nd.edu>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:50:01 -0500
From: Paul Russell <prussell@nd.edu>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
References: <4B6C6D35.1050101@nortel.com> <201002091331.13013.ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk> <7C5B0CA93C5231334EF483EE@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk> <201002091508.30014.ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <201002091508.30014.ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Source-IP: 129.74.250.37
X-ND-MTA-Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:50:42 EST
Subject: Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus Call - submission via posting (was Re: Iteration #3))
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:48:58 -0000

On 2/9/2010 10:08, Andrew Richards wrote:
> A better way of expressing myself would be "...how long it takes 'normal' 
> users to report TiS for a message from its first presentation to the user" 
> which would cover the user deleting messages purely based on the message 
> preview you mention below.

The vast majority of the complaints we receive about spam sent from compromised
accounts arrive within 2 days of the incident.  In several cases, we received
reports 4-6 weeks after the incidents.  In one case, we received a report nearly
4 months after the incident.  There is probably no practical reason to report
anything more than 3 days old.

-- 
Paul Russell, Senior Systems Administrator
OIT Messaging Services Team
University of Notre Dame