Bart Schaefer wrote: > On 10/17/07, Randal, Phil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hyperbole? >> >> Well, let's take a look at the figures on my mail relay boxes > > Not to single out Phil, but so far everyone is quoting (among other > things) the percentage of mail that they reject out of hand. You're > all 100% confident that none of those were false positives? >
We are currently running around 90%. It varies weekly. That includes all smtp blocking as well as filtering and detection. I can say we have no false positives. We are small enough that if there were a false positive, my support staff would be opening a trouble ticket toot sweet. Our clients have no problems calling up and screaming that we are costing them millions and millions of dollars every time we stop a message. > My point was that "rejected/filtered by anti-spam techniques" and "is > spam" are not synonymous, but nearly everyone who publishes spam > figures behaves as if they were, and most of them have a vested > interest in making the number sound as big and scary as possible. > My interest is in seeing the numbers smaller and smaller. I would love to have numbers like 10% spam along with no customer complaints. That would mean spam was slowing down and I could spend that anti-spam money on other things I need for our NOCs. Things that make us money. But I understand your point, I take everything written/spoken/published by product suppliers and pundits with a large grain of salt. DAve -- Three years now I've asked Google why they don't have a logo change for Memorial Day. Why do they choose to do logos for other non-international holidays, but nothing for Veterans? Maybe they forgot who made that choice possible.