Subject: [Asrg] March spam ratio

From: Matt Sergeant <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:28:32 +0100

Just an FYI for those interested in stats:

MessageLabs spam ratio for March 2003: 36.3% (an increase of 29.3% on 
the February figure).

Matt.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 06:39:19 -0800

Folks,

MS> MessageLabs spam ratio for March 2003: 36.3% (an increase of 29.3% on
MS> the February figure).

Here is a proposal:

This is supposed to be a technical discussion group.  If someone is
going to place some tidbit of information into the group, other than
their own opinion, I propose that they should offer substantiation for
the tidbit.

In the case of statistics, a citation to its source and/or a discussion
of how it was obtained.

That way we will have some ability to assess the tidbit, rather than
being expected to accept it blindly.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>

---

From: Matt Sergeant <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:36:59 +0100

> being expected to accept it blindly.

Wouldn't it be more sane to ask people to check the archives for that 
poster? *sigh*

Anyway, I'll comply:

This is just spam detected for our customers (about 1.3m users across 
the globe). So some has got through (about 92-98% accuracy is usual). 
Spam is detected by a variety of means, but most spam is detected via 
heuristics (and no I'm not proposing this as a long term solution to 
spam - I'm merely posting the figures here for research/analysis 
purposes).

Further details available on http://www.messagelabs.com/viruseye (will 
be updated to the March edition later today).

---

From: Markus Stumpf <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 18:40:57 +0200

> be updated to the March edition later today).

These are virus statistics. I can't see any spam statistics there.

	\Maex

-- 
SpaceNet AG            | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0
Research & Development |       D-80807 Muenchen    | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299
"The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally
 proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin"
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:59:03 -0800

Matt,

Many thanks for the detailed response.  My point was not to hassle you,
specifically, but to carry through with the concern I raised at the S.F.
IETF meeting.  Namely, this is an area that has lots of statistics
bandied about, some of which have no objective validity. Even when they
have validity, they can be subject to different, legitimate
interpretations.  This is a complicated topic.

So, as a technical forum, we need to seek technical due diligence, if we
are going to have any meaningful basis for evaluating one claim over
another.

MS> Wouldn't it be more sane to ask people to check the archives for that
MS> poster? *sigh*

I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean by this text.  I do not
understand the sentence.

In any event, I think that when someone puts a claim forward -- any
claim -- that person carries the burden to make the case for that claim.
Placing the burden on each reader to do any substantial research to
validate the claim, strikes me as inefficient, at best.

MS> This is just spam detected for our customers (about 1.3m users across

Thanks for clarifying that you work for the source of the information.
I probably should have known that, but I didn't, and your From field
address is different.

MS> the globe). So some has got through (about 92-98% accuracy is usual).
MS> Spam is detected by a variety of means, but most spam is detected via

as was noted, the link points to a virus monitor, not a spam monitor.

MS> heuristics (and no I'm not proposing this as a long term solution to

Virus detection that permits labeling the specific virus -- as is done
in the viruseye display -- does not use heuristics.  The code does
pattern matching, but not "guessing".

When heuristics DO get used, the obvious requirement is for accompanying
statistics about rates of false positives and false negatives. That is,
confidence levels for the heuistics.

d/