Re: Best Email Time

2006-12-09 Thread Alexander Harrowell

This account sees something over 10x more spam than genuine traffic, almost
all of which is autofiltered.

On 12/9/06, Rich Kulawiec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 07:50:57AM -0500, David Hester wrote:
> CNN recently reported that 90% of all email on the internet is spam.
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/27/uk.spam.reut/index.html

CNN is behind the times.  We passed 90% junk (spam, viruses, bogus virus
warnings, worms, outscatter spam, C/R spam, etc.) a few years ago.
Locally, over the last three months, we've been rejecting > 98% of
incoming
traffic with just two reported problems from internal and external users.

And almost all of that rejected traffic TCP-fingerprints as originating
from hosts running Windows.

---Rsk



Re: Best Email Time

2006-12-09 Thread Rich Kulawiec

On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 07:50:57AM -0500, David Hester wrote:
> CNN recently reported that 90% of all email on the internet is spam.
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/27/uk.spam.reut/index.html

CNN is behind the times.  We passed 90% junk (spam, viruses, bogus virus
warnings, worms, outscatter spam, C/R spam, etc.) a few years ago.
Locally, over the last three months, we've been rejecting > 98% of incoming
traffic with just two reported problems from internal and external users.

And almost all of that rejected traffic TCP-fingerprints as originating
from hosts running Windows.

---Rsk


Re: Best Email Time

2006-12-08 Thread Simon Waters

On Friday 08 December 2006 12:50, you wrote:
> 
> CNN recently reported that 90% of all email on the internet is spam.
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/27/uk.spam.reut/index.html

I posted my rant a while back to save bandwidth;

http://www.circleid.com/posts/misleading_spam_data/


Re: Best Email Time

2006-12-08 Thread David Hester

On 12/5/06 12:00 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 10:14:06 EST, William Allen Simpson said:
> 
>> The "study" says that "nearly 20 percent of email does not get delivered to
>> the inbox as intended, largely because it gets mistaken as spam."
> 
> Somewhere around 85% of all mail attempts to us are summarily rejected because
> the source is in some block list or other, resulting in the spam not being
> delivered to our user's inboxes as the spammer intended, largely because it
> is recognized as spam.
> 
> Statistics are what you read into them

CNN recently reported that 90% of all email on the internet is spam.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/27/uk.spam.reut/index.html

David Hester




Re: Best Email Time

2006-12-05 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 10:14:06 EST, William Allen Simpson said:

> The "study" says that "nearly 20 percent of email does not get delivered to
> the inbox as intended, largely because it gets mistaken as spam."

Somewhere around 85% of all mail attempts to us are summarily rejected because
the source is in some block list or other, resulting in the spam not being
delivered to our user's inboxes as the spammer intended, largely because it
is recognized as spam.

Statistics are what you read into them


pgp5CIhtodfVt.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: Best Email Time

2006-12-05 Thread Kee Hinckley


On Dec 5, 2006, at 10:14 AM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
The "study" says that "nearly 20 percent of email does not get  
delivered to

the inbox as intended, largely because it gets mistaken as spam."

That's utter hogwash.  My Mail Mailguard statistics this year show  
that for

me personally, only 0.1% of messages are false positives!  Systemwide,
it's only 0.6%!


My experience with running an anti-spam service is that 20% is  
probably not far off for non-technical end-users. I might put it  
closer at 10%, but it's certainly larger than you would expect.   
First of all, they never check the stuff that gets dumped into the  
spam folder in their app or service--so the filters don't get fine  
tuned.  Secondly, they ignore legit bounces (heck, gmail flags all  
bounces as spam).  Thirdly, they tend to delete anything from anyone  
they don't recognize--that particularly includes receipts for stuff  
they bought online, and subscriptions that they knowingly or  
unknowingly signed up for.


The main point is that even if they've got a spam filter with a low  
false positive rate, that doesn't mean all legit mail gets "through".


Speaking of bounces.  For the past month or so I've been getting  
daily spam bounce-backs that are from lists very similar to those  
that I actually subscribe to (i.e. similar technical content).  I'm  
beginning to wonder if the spammers aren't trying to get through to  
mailing lists that authenticate based on sender email address.


Re: Best Email Time

2006-12-05 Thread Suresh Ramasubramanian


On 12/5/06, William Allen Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


The "study" says that "nearly 20 percent of email does not get delivered to
the inbox as intended, largely because it gets mistaken as spam."

That's utter hogwash.  My Mail Mailguard statistics this year show that for
me personally, only 0.1% of messages are false positives!  Systemwide,
it's only 0.6%!



Depends on -

1. How large your network is (how many millions of mailboxes)

2. How you define spam [that study probably defines anything that's
can-spam compliant as non-spam?  haven't checked]


Re: Best Email Time

2006-12-05 Thread William Allen Simpson


Dennis Dayman wrote:

Ok, so the question of when is the best time to "spam" has come up. I cited
the ReturnPath 2004 study
(http://returnpath.biz/pdf/time_deliverability_0704.pdf), but now the
question of when we think the Net is most congested (more likely to see
overloaded MX servers and delivery failures?). 


Anyone have any data on such? Sorry if this question seems offtopic here,
but I figure the question of net congestion data is appropriate.


That "study" seems rather off-base, but explains why the spam patterns
have changed over time

(I'm one of those silly people that has kept my non-worm spam that makes
it past basic filters since 1999.)

I see a lot of spam in the 2am to 8am EST frame.

Phishing seems to peak Fri-Sat instead, presumably to avoid the weekday
mitigation departments

The "study" says that "nearly 20 percent of email does not get delivered to
the inbox as intended, largely because it gets mistaken as spam."

That's utter hogwash.  My Mail Mailguard statistics this year show that for
me personally, only 0.1% of messages are false positives!  Systemwide,
it's only 0.6%!

On the false negative side, I'm seeing 4.2% personally, 2.8% systemwide.

I conclude the parameters and filters are set a bit liberally, allowing
too much spam.


Best Email Time

2006-12-05 Thread Dennis Dayman

Ok, so the question of when is the best time to "spam" has come up. I cited
the ReturnPath 2004 study
(http://returnpath.biz/pdf/time_deliverability_0704.pdf), but now the
question of when we think the Net is most congested (more likely to see
overloaded MX servers and delivery failures?). 

Anyone have any data on such? Sorry if this question seems offtopic here,
but I figure the question of net congestion data is appropriate.

-Dennis