Re: [Asrg] VPNs

Daniel Feenberg <feenberg@nber.org> Tue, 07 July 2009 12:33 UTC

Return-Path: <feenberg@nber.org>
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 E8FB43A690E for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 05:33:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 14FsQjkLjkUa for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 05:33:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.nber.org (mail2.nber.org [66.251.72.79]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22E3F3A67CC for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 05:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nber5.nber.org (nber5.nber.org [66.251.72.75]) by mail2.nber.org (8.14.1/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n67CWB4p070775 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NOT) for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 08:32:12 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from feenberg@nber.org)
Received: from nber5.nber.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nber5.nber.org (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7) with ESMTP id n67CEt9w002516; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 08:14:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (feenberg@localhost) by nber5.nber.org (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.8/Submit) with ESMTP id n67CErZI002513; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 08:14:55 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: nber5.nber.org: feenberg owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 08:14:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Feenberg <feenberg@nber.org>
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
In-Reply-To: <4A52C36D.6040207@billmail.scconsult.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0907070800470.1061@nber5.nber.org>
References: <20090623213728.1825.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <4A41D773.50508@telmon.org> <4A41E506.2010106@mines-paristech.fr> <20090624160052.B5DC62428A@panix5.panix.com> <4A426B9D.7090901@mines-paristech.fr> <4A43618A.6000205@tana.it> <4A4F7DD0.4040404@billmail.scconsult.com> <4A51D35E.70306@tana.it> <4A52C36D.6040207@billmail.scconsult.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Anti-Virus: Kaspersky Anti-Virus for Sendmail with Milter API 5.6.20, bases: 20090706 #2202383, check: 20090707 clean
Subject: Re: [Asrg] VPNs
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, 07 Jul 2009 12:33:02 -0000

On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Bill Cole wrote:

> Alessandro Vesely wrote, On 7/6/09 6:35 AM:
...
> The overwhelming majority of mail I am offered by the Gmail outbounds is 
> spam. Google has played games with how they will accept abuse reports, giving 
> the appearance of not really wanting them.
>

Are these messages disguised in any way? Just looking at my last week's 
mail, there are 120 messages with "gmail.com" in the envelope-from. Two of 
these are spam, or about .2% of my incoming spam. Am I measuring the wrong 
thing? Or do different users have a different experience of spam? My 
account has been fairly public for over 15 years, so if an MTA were 
spewing a significant proportion of the worlds spam, wouldn't I be getting 
some?

Daniel Feenberg