SpamManager. The CYBERsitter name that is in Scott's statistics was the beta name.
www.spammanager.com John Tolmachoff MCSE, CSSA IT Manager, Network Engineer RelianceSoft, Inc. Fullerton, CA 92835 www.reliancesoft.com > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:IMail_Forum- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Serhan Sevim > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 11:27 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] February 2003 Spam Statistics > > I guess I'm missing something here. > Does Cybersitter eliminite 94 percent of the overall SPAM ? > Are we talking about cybersitter, the $29.95 product located on this link ?? > > http://www.cybersitter.com/antispampg.htm > > > > > ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- > From: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 14:11:41 -0500 > > >About a year ago, we started to go through our spamtraps (E-mail addresses > >designed to collect spam), to find out which spam tests were most effective > >at catching spam. The results this month are based on over 25,000 spams > >that were received, all in February, 2003. In February, our spamtraps > >received over 25% more spam than January. In February, 2003 we received > >more than 7 times as much spam as in February, 2002! > > > >The following is a list of tests that we run against the E-mails arriving > >at the spamtrap, and what percentage of the spam they caught (it may be > >easier to read if you use a fixed-width font): > > > > > >WEIGHT10 99.63% [FP:~1%] > >WEIGHT20 98.48% [FP:~5%] > >SPAMCHK 95.50% [FP:~50%] > >SNIFFER 94.98% [FP:~2%] > >CYBERSITTER 94.06% [FP:~5%] > >IPNOTINMX 81.94% [FP:~22%] > >WIREHUB-DNSBL 79.17% [FP:~1%] > >SPAMCOP 70.66% [FP:~1%] > >XBL 69.14% [FP:~70%] > >MAILDEFLECTOR 46.17% > >DSBLALL 41.61% > >DSBL 40.44% > >MONKEYPROXIES 37.60% > >SPAMHEADERS 36.82% > >REVDNS 36.68% > >SPAMHAUS 36.57% > >OSSOFT 34.47% > >FREEMAIL 32.15% > >DORKZTL 31.39% > >NOPOSTMASTER 30.78% > >HELO 27.18% > >BLITZEDALL 26.83% > >BADHEADERS 26.43% > >OSSRC 24.47% > >INTERSIL 24.41% > >POSTFIXGATE 23.75% > >NOABUSE 22.58% > >BLARSBL 20.88% > >BADWHOIS 18.06% > >FIVETENDUL 17.62% > >FIVETENSRC 15.44% > >OSPROXY 15.26% > >BASE64 13.09% > >ROUTING 12.05% > >VOX 10.84% > >IPWHOIS 8.57% > >DNSRBL-SPAM 7.78% > >NJABL 7.19% > >SPAMBAG 6.79% > >FIVETENIGNORE 6.11% > >FABELSOURCES 5.45% > >OSRELAY 5.44% > >FIVETENOPTIN 5.34% > >DSN 5.26% > >KUNDENSERVER 4.70% > >BLITZEDHTTP 4.41% > >ORDB 4.09% > >DELINK 3.57% > >LNGSDUL 2.74% > >DNSRBL-DUN 2.73% > >MAILFROM 2.19% > >DORKS 2.13% > >BLITZEDSOCKS 2.13% > >NJABLDUL 2.02% > >COMPU 1.98% > >WIREHUB-DYNA 1.78% > >KITHRUP 1.70% > >PIGS 1.47% > >COMMENTS 1.35% > >DSBLMULTI 1.20% > >OSDUL 0.75% > >DEVNULL 0.40% > >ABL 0.40% > >FIVETENOTHER 0.33% > >LNGSBLOCK 0.25% > >NONENGLISH 0.18% > >FIVETENMULTI 0.17% > >JIPPG-DUL 0.14% > >DORKRELAYS 0.13% > >FLOWGO 0.11% > >DNSMAILLIST 0.08% > >FIVETENWEBFORM 0.06% > >BLITZEDWINGATE 0.06% > >DNSUCE 0.03% > >OSLIST 0.01% > > > > > >The WEIGHT10 and WEIGHT20 tests are a weighting system that assigns a > >weight to each E-mail, based on the spam tests that fail, so they don't > >really count as spam tests by themselves (but, they show that you can catch > >as much as 98-99% of spam with extremely few false positives). It is also > >important to note that different tests are more likely to produce false > >positives (such as the IPNOTINMX, XBL, REVDNS, and SPAMHEADERS tests, > that > >all catch a lot of spam, but catch a lot of legitimate mail as well); those > >tests are best used in a weighting system, so E-mail will only be marked as > >spam if it fails a combination of tests. > > > >There are 3 tests that caught over 90% of the spam in our > >spamtraps: SPAMCHK ( http://www.riedmann.it/spamchk/ ) at 95.50%, SNIFFER > >( http://www.sortmonster.com ) at 94.98%, and CYBERSITTER ( > >http://www.spammanager.com ). All tests that caught over 50% of the spam > >have an approximate false positive percentage as well. > > > >For false positives, the rate would be much lower if we whitelisted > >legitimate-but-poorly-maintained mailservers. Also, the false positive > >rate is based on a portion of legitimate E-mail that we process here; > >different false positive rates may be found with different types of E-mail > >(for example, the false positive rates for SPAMCHK, SNIFFER, and > >CYBERSITTER are disproportionately high, as they examine the content of > >E-mail, and we receive a lot of legitimate E-mail that has copies of spam > >in it). > > > >More information on most of the various spam tests shown above can be found > >at http://www.declude.com/junkmail/support/ip4r.htm . You can look up an > >IP address using the Spam Database Lookup tool at http://www.DNSstuff.com > >to see what spam databases it is listed in. The most recent 20 spams in > >our spamtraps, and the tests they failed, can be found at > >http://www.declude.com/spamtrap.htm . > > -Scott > > > >--- > >[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] > > > > > >To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html > >List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ > >Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/ > > > > To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html > List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ > Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/ To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
