> -----Original Message----- > From: Raquel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 8:29 PM > > On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 08:58:23 -0700 > "Bart Schaefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 10/17/07, Tom Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I just thought if anyone hasn't read it yet, this article might > > > be interesting to many of you. According to this report SPAM has > > > now reached being 95% of all email. > > > > This is hyperbole. > > > > What it really means is that 95% of the mail processed by > > someone's commercial spam filter has been classified, possibly > > incorrectly, as spam. The rates are much lower (though still too > > high for comfort) if false positives are accounted for. > > > > See, for example: > > http://www.bcs.org/server.php?show=conWebDoc.14617 > > > > According to my server's stats: > 91.19% of all mail is rejected at the MTA > 92.97% of all mail is discarded at the MTA or marked as SPAM by > Spamassassin
These figures are probably including DSNs to fake mail addresses, isn't it? Now, such DSNs are to be regarded as SPAM from a server, but you can't count them as spam in the overall: they are the sub-product of a spam message, thereby counting them you would count the "originating" spam twice... Which are your stats for rejected/discarded DSNs? Giampaolo > > -- > Raquel > ============================================================ > Not only are we to help in time of trouble, but we are actually > obligated to take steps to prevent physical harm from coming to a > neighbor and his livestock. > --Robert J. Matthews, "What 'Loving Your Neighbor' Really Means,"
