On Sat, 28 Apr 2001 15:37:56 -0500 (CDT)
David W Tamkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Murr Rhame wrote,
>> Reducing the number of recipients per-email doesn't help. I use
>> Lyris software which always sends individual emails to all
>> recipients. I've seen AOL email dropped on lists with a few as
>> two or three dozen AOL $ubscribers and no more than a handful of
>> posts daily.
> But was it dropped because of a screwup by AOL, or was it dropped
> because of these policies? It's not that you are comparing apples
> with oranges so much as that you might be comparing rotted apples
> with poisoned apples.
A little though suggests that AOL is fairly likely to have a variety
of criteria that is used in their SPAM detection. Certainly they've
been at it long enough, and have been the target of enough SPAMmer
to have been forced to come up with a multi-variable arrangement.
As a result, my tests looking at envelope size as a single variable
were likely of little meaning. Murr's tests looking at
connection/transaction density (I'm not usre how Lyris operates)
seem to have looked at the effect of one or two other variables.
Odds are they are using all three values, together. Its also
possible they are factoring in time and anything else they can think
of.
--
J C Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------(*) http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/
--=| A man is as sane as he is dangerous to his environment |=--
