[unisog] Extremely High Spam Statistics

Daniel Feenberg feenberg at nber.org
Tue Feb 20 20:53:29 GMT 2007


Is it possible that much of the difference across MTA is due to some 
counts excluding mail to non-existant accounts, and some including such 
mail? Dictionary spam can be quite volume, and those messages are not 
something we would include as spam or non-spam.

Daniel Feenberg

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Joseph Brennan wrote:

>
>
>> Feb, 2007
>>
>> 108395	 (6%)
>> 1707607	 (94%)
>
>
> These counts are amazingly high from my point of view.  To begin with
> 12% of our volume is from our own authenticated users or other mail
> systems at the university, and we can quickly reach almost 20% of
> volume by adding in sources unlikely to be spam like Gmail and AOL,
> the New York Times, Monster, Bigfootinteractive.
>
> Are these counts excluding mail from local users, and including
> "possible spam" that is not bad enough to reject?
>
> We certainly have seen an increase since mid 2006 too, but we only
> hit 60% spam weekdays and 80% weekends (there isn't more spam
> on weekends, just fewer legit messages).  That is the ratio of
> messages rejected to messages accepted.
>
> Joseph Brennan
> Lead Email Systems Engineer
> Columbia University Information Technology
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> unisog mailing list
> unisog at lists.dshield.org
> https://lists.sans.org/mailman/listinfo/unisog
>



More information about the unisog mailing list