At 04:14 AM 12/21/2005, Martin Hepworth wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4547474.stm
Not according to my stats....but the users don't get the spam anymore ;-)
I find it amusing that most of the stats in that article are the combined
affects of spam filters and the can-spam law, but they declare can-spam a
success as a result. i.e.: the quoted AOL numbers are indicative of better
filtering, as it reflects mail received by the users, not the network.
The only number they cite that might be indicative of a reduction in spam
is MX Logic reported that for 2005 spam was 68% of their inbound email,
compared to 77% last year.
However, if they were to read MX Logic's full data they'd see that while
spam had a low back in may (60%), by November it recovered (78%) to levels
higher than the average of 2004. This results in a low average, but current
rates are as strong as ever.
http://www.mxlogic.com/news_events/press_releases/12_13_05_CAN_SPAM.html
That tells me that spam took a hit in early 2005, and it's now on the rise,
and has surpassed last years levels.
In fact, if I had to guess why may was a "low month" for spam, I'd say it
had to do with Massachusets freezing some of Leo's operations on May 11th.
http://www.ago.state.ma.us/sp.cfm?pageid=986&id=1416
While admittedly Leo was sued under the can-spam act, it looks like the
relief it gave us was quite temporary. It looks like Leo rebuilt most of
his operation by August, and was back in full-swing by October.
But the reality of the numbers won't stop the FTC from tooting it's own
horn and claiming victory.. Unfortunately for us, this will likely result
in some major spammers unleashing a mass-scale deluge just to show they're
wrong. The best I think we can hope for is that a few of them might get
reckless in this endeavor and get nailed.
