Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2.a.1 Analysis of Actual Spam Data - Titan Key reduces spam attacks

From: "Peter Kay" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 10:07:18 -1000

if you discard days 94 and 106 there is still a downward trend. Now, let
me be the first to raise my hand to say I'm not a statistician. So
perhaps your application of "ropy" might be more accurately expressed as
"layman".  
But the numbers are there for everyone to see. And please, if there's
someone here who can honestly call themselves a statistician please step
forward and lend us your wisdom.
 
The trend is either up, flat, or down. According to the linear
regression trendline, the trend is down. If there is a statistical
definition of "significant" then of course lets apply it. But if we're
going to apply it then lets also apply this trend against ANYONE elses
trend that is not using Titan Key.   
 
And then decide if one using a Titan Key email address reduces their
spam over time vs. someone that uses any other anti-spam approach.
 
Peter

	-----Original Message-----
	From: Tom Thomson [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 9:19 AM
	To: Peter Kay; [email-masked]
	Subject: RE: [Asrg] 2.a.1 Analysis of Actual Spam Data - Titan
Key reduces spam attacks

	eems to me that you have done some pretty ropy analysis.
	 
	did you discard the obviously anomalous outlier at day 106?
	 
	I did some quick analysis after discarding day 94 and day 106.
Conclusion: no significant trend.  There may be a slight tren for the
counts to increase, but it certainly isn't something I would bet on from
this data.  I certainly wouldn't claim a decreasing trend.
	 
	Tom

		-----Original Message-----
		From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
Behalf Of Peter Kay
		Sent: 31 July 2003 19:32
		To: [email-masked]
		Subject: [Asrg] 2.a.1 Analysis of Actual Spam Data -
Titan Key reduces spam attacks

		I've posted an updated log file analysis of spam sent to
[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>  which is an
old email address of mine that is still in use but under the protection
of The Titan Key. 
		 
		that log file is at:
http://www.titankey.com/misc/logs/logPK.xls <http://www.titankey.com/> 
		 
		We're happy to report that with about 100 days of
analysis, the trend of spam attacks to this email address is DOWN.  To
our knowledge this is the only anti-spam software that has demonstrated
this capability. 
		 
		As we've mentioned before, our technology responds with
a 550 no such user after analyzing the MAIL FROM and RCPT TO against a
consent database.    This has the dual benefit of saving bandwidth
(email contents are never sent) and, as shown above, reducing the
attacks over time.
		 
		Peter

---

From: "Alan DeKok" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:37:43 -0400

"Peter Kay" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> But the numbers are there for everyone to see.

  ?

>> that log file is at: http://www.titankey.com/misc/logs/logPK.xls

  If you're going to put an analysis up on the web for other people to
see, it would be preferable to put it up as a web page, or
standard format, so that other people could see it.

> trend that is not using Titan Key.

  Or someone using an email address from another domain.

  A trend for one user is nice, but it doesn't make a convincing
argument.

  Alan DeKok.

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

---

From: Kee Hinckley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:21:21 -0400

>  > definition of "significant" then of course lets apply it. But if we're

It's been a long time since I took all my stats courses, but one 
thing I'm sure of.  A sample size of one address out of several 
hundred million, with no control, is not significant.

Set up two addresses at the same domain.  Advertise them with 
identical exposure on the same web pages and the same newsgroups, let 
the spam build up to a certain level, then start bouncing one and not 
the other.  *Then* we might have some interesting statistics.  Every 
year I bounce twice as many messages as the year before.  Is that 
proof that bouncing doesn't work?  Nope. I need to compare that 
number to addresses receiving similar amounts of similar spam that 
don't bounce.
-- 
Kee Hinckley
http://www.messagefire.com/          Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/   Writings on Technology and Society

I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.