Re: [Asrg] spam down?

Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> Sat, 26 January 2013 19:20 UTC

Return-Path: <bzs@world.std.com>
X-Original-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9786D21F88D1 for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:20:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PZ6SWOtCi1Yx for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:20:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from TheWorld.com (pcls5.std.com [192.74.137.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C938721F88EA for <asrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:20:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from world.std.com (root@world.std.com [192.74.137.5]) by TheWorld.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r0QJJUnE016375 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 26 Jan 2013 14:19:32 -0500
Received: (from bzs@localhost) by world.std.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) id r0QJJUki025117; Sat, 26 Jan 2013 14:19:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <20740.11329.978731.29007@world.std.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 14:19:29 -0500
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
In-Reply-To: <5103DC4E.4090004@mtcc.com>
References: <5103DC4E.4090004@mtcc.com>
X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under Emacs 21.2.2
Subject: Re: [Asrg] spam down?
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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/options/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: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 19:20:03 -0000

It depends a lot on how and particularly where spam is measured.

Most naive measurements, I'd say 99% of what we hear about, only care
about what hits an end-user's screen.

By that time it's had to run a gauntlet of blocks at sources, blocks
at ISPs, and whatever spam filters are in the user's MUA.

So the report of reduction could just as well mean that any one, or
all, of those are improving.

Or of course that less spam is being sent out.

Those of us more involved in the infrastructure of the internet tend
to be at least as concerned with the volume of attempted deliveries of
spam. The gates may hold back the barbarians, but you still have
barbarians at the gates!

Perhaps that leads to some useful taxonomy since the model is pretty
straightforward.

Volume of spam sourced, volume of spam which leaves the network it's
sourced from, volume received at providers, volume delivered to a
mailbox, and volume seen by an end-user.

Those are all different measurements and each interesting in its own
way.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

The World              | bzs@TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*