SPAMCOP HOME · SPAMCOP FAQ · NEWSGROUPS · FORUM FAQ · WEBMAIL · SSL WEBMAIL · SPAMCOPWIKI


 Other words, data, places -->  SpamCop Pages V  FAQs & Words V  Newsgroups V  WebMail V  News-Recent Stuff V   Poll on menu

------>------> Latest and Current Announcements <------<------

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> This is a User to User Support Forum

The primary mode of support here is peer-to-peer, meaning users helping other users. (please remember this at all times!)
Another try:
This forum is composed of people who have used spamcop and those who are learning about anti-spam efforts.

4 Pages V « < 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Why not whitelists, This could be the end of spam !!
StevenUnderwood
post Feb 24 2005, 08:05 AM
Post #51


What Life?
Group Icon

Group: Membersph
Posts: 5208
Joined: 20-January 04
From: Whitinsville, MA USA
Member No.: 12



For some numbers, since the date of the article (1/24/2005, 1 month ago), I have sent only 6 spam reports to aol compared to 17 reports the month before that.

sent to: abuse[at]charter.net: 37 in the last month, 69 in the month before that.

sent to: ct-abuse[at]abuse.sprint.net: 70 in the last month, 114 in the month before that.

So from these numbers, spam is down (for me) the last month overall and AOL is doing better than the other providers. These numbers are also slight estimates. They are actually the number of quick report responses containing the abuse address, assuming 1 report per message. The numbers could be higher if there was more than one report within the quick report summary.

Also, that article shows it is possible to greatly reduce the amount of spam on the internet without the use of SPF being widely accepted. It just takes providers (ISP and bandwidth) to take responsibility for their contribution. As Miss Betsy likes to say, the sender needs to be responsible for what they are sending.


--------------------
Steven P. Underwood, DNRC
Whitinsville, MA
underwood+forum[at]spamcop.net

-No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.-
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
macquigg
post Feb 24 2005, 11:58 AM
Post #52


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 26
Joined: 16-February 05
Member No.: 3616



QUOTE(StevenUnderwood @ Feb 24 2005, 06:05 AM)
For some numbers, since the date of the article (1/24/2005, 1 month ago), I have sent only 6 spam reports to aol compared to 17 reports the month before that.
sent to: abuse[at]charter.net: 37 in the last month, 69 in the month before that.
sent to: ct-abuse[at]abuse.sprint.net: 70 in the last month, 114 in the month before that.

Using these numbers and the total domain volumes from senderbase.org, we can derive a "Spam Suppression Ratio" and compare the domains. I can't post a graphic here, but I put it at tinyurl.com/4gud4 Looks like AOL is 100 times better than the other domains. All good citizens, please use AOL :>)
QUOTE
Also, that article shows it is possible to greatly reduce the amount of spam on the internet without the use of SPF being widely accepted.  It just takes providers (ISP and bandwidth) to take responsibility for their contribution.  As Miss Betsy likes to say, the sender needs to be responsible for what they are sending.

Absolutely right! Good domains like ISP will reduce their outgoing spam without any prodding from SPF. What SPF will do is push the other domains to clean up also.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
macquigg
post Feb 24 2005, 12:18 PM
Post #53


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 26
Joined: 16-February 05
Member No.: 3616



QUOTE(Wazoo @ Feb 24 2005, 12:22 AM)
Even if you had a number, what would it mean?  To compare AOL's worldwide system and millions of users with a local ISP that provides for 2,000 people and hosts 100 web-sites ...??? what would that do for you?

Take the number of reports for each domain, divide by the total volume from that domain, and use the ratio as a raw score. Then make a histogram of all the scores and decide where to draw the lines for each rating.
QUOTE
have you ever looked at http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=map ???

Yes, it looks like you have plenty of raw data! All you need to do is process that data to get some meaningful, and easily understood results.

-- Dave
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Wazoo
post Mar 12 2005, 03:03 AM
Post #54


What Life?
Group Icon

Group: Forum Admin
Posts: 13194
Joined: 22-January 04
From: Iowa
Member No.: 18



Interesting read at http://www.linuxworld.com/story/48128.htm?DE=1 ... especially the part about spammer adoption of SPF <g>
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Wazoo
post Mar 12 2005, 04:19 AM
Post #55


What Life?
Group Icon

Group: Forum Admin
Posts: 13194
Joined: 22-January 04
From: Iowa
Member No.: 18



OK, my heads been in the sand for a while ... petzl gave me a link, I've been studying things for a bit ... dang, it's hard to hold it all in. http://www.kelkea.com/ is offering the "perfect .. no lost e-mail .. nothing can go wrong" spam solution. The amazing phrase is plastered all over the place ... "Stops spam at the Source" ....

Of course, reading deeper, that actually changes to "stops spam before it enters the network" ... digging even deeper, it shifts the focal point a little bit more ...

Let's put it this way, "stopping spam at the source" would seem to imply that several of their partners/associates/whatever wouldn't be hitting my InBox every day ... RoadRunner, SBC, BT .. and the funniest of course is seeing the AT&T logo as a player, but also listed as #8 in the Top 10 Spamming Networks .... sure makes it hard to tie the rhetoric and the results together ....
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
petzl
post Mar 12 2005, 05:20 AM
Post #56


Been There
Group Icon

Group: Memberp
Posts: 1533
Joined: 20-January 04
From: Sydney Australia
Member No.: 6



Sounds like rubbish to me? They have no customers or reputation that I know of? I do not see anybody but themselves touting their claims as true!
This the CEO

there is a product developed/bought for CISCO systems called Zombie Killer which seems to be at the heart of Kelkea (MAPS) service


--------------------
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
macquigg
post Mar 12 2005, 08:19 AM
Post #57


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 26
Joined: 16-February 05
Member No.: 3616



QUOTE(Wazoo @ Mar 12 2005, 01:03 AM)
Interesting read at http://www.linuxworld.com/story/48128.htm?DE=1 ... especially the part about spammer adoption of SPF <g>

You still have your head in the sand. SPF is *not* an anti-spam tool. If you want to learn about email authentication and how it relates to anti-spam tools, there are some references in the article you cited.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Wazoo
post Mar 12 2005, 11:42 AM
Post #58


What Life?
Group Icon

Group: Forum Admin
Posts: 13194
Joined: 22-January 04
From: Iowa
Member No.: 18



QUOTE(macquigg @ Mar 12 2005, 07:19 AM)
You still have your head in the sand.  SPF is *not* an anti-spam tool.  If you want to learn about email authentication and how it relates to anti-spam tools, there are some references in the article you cited.

Me thinks you are adding words in your mind to what I typed ... where do you see me tying SPF to anti-spam tools in "especially the part about spammer adoption of SPF " ...????? On the other hand, one could go back into the history of the concept and make your own determination as to where and why the idea even came into being.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
macquigg
post Mar 12 2005, 12:19 PM
Post #59


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 26
Joined: 16-February 05
Member No.: 3616



QUOTE(Wazoo @ Mar 12 2005, 09:42 AM)
Me thinks you are adding words in your mind to what I typed ... where do you see me tying SPF to anti-spam tools in "especially the part about spammer adoption of SPF " ...????? 

There is a common and false argument I often hear from the anti-SPF crowd that adoption of SPF by spammers is proof that SPF is no good. Sorry if I misunderstood your innuendo, and sorry if my blunt criticism was taken as an insult.

The topic of this thread is whitelists. Steve gave me some interesting data, which show that AOL is 100 times better at suppressing outgoing spam than either Sprint or Charter. See the "Domain Ratings" chart at http://www.ece.arizona.edu/~edatools/etc/ I've used this chart in discussions on other forums, always with the caveat that this is a very small sample. I would like to improve the chart with a better sample, maybe several hundred SpamCop reports, and maybe a better selection of "typical" domains to compare with AOL.

I'll be happy to continue this discussion, but only if I get some useful information, and not a lot of sarcasm.

-- Dave
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Wazoo
post Mar 12 2005, 01:28 PM
Post #60


What Life?
Group Icon

Group: Forum Admin
Posts: 13194
Joined: 22-January 04
From: Iowa
Member No.: 18



All that was in my thoughts was yet another example of spammers adapting things so much faster than the rest of the 'mainstream' service providers. I thouht that this point was pretty clear, as that was the exact thrust of the part of the article I pointed to with the "especially" comment.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dra007
post Mar 12 2005, 01:30 PM
Post #61


Been There
Group Icon

Group: Memberp
Posts: 1561
Joined: 18-March 04
Member No.: 777



This thread is getting as old as the Limburger cheese I bought last year. Bottom line is that with such opposing views no one is listening, besides there is no give and take in this debate. As annoying as spam is and the spammer scum are, I am starting to buy the idea that a common front to combat those criminals is beyond anyone's dreams.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shmengie
post Mar 12 2005, 01:30 PM
Post #62


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 97
Joined: 19-February 05
Member No.: 3629



QUOTE(macquigg @ Mar 12 2005, 01:19 PM)
http://www.ece.arizona.edu/~edatools/etc/  I've used this chart in discussions on other forums, always with the caveat that this is a very small sample.  I would like to improve the chart with a better sample, maybe several hundred SpamCop reports, and maybe a better selection of "typical" domains to compare with AOL.
*



I was curious, so I took a look. After reflection, I don't see the relavance. Does AOL still have Cable customers? I'm going under the assumption they don't, and in that event your comparing apples to oranges.

I applaud AOL for their antivirus initiative, and suspect that may actually influence the numbers, but aside from that, dail-up and cable/dsl are two different beasts.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jeff G.
post Mar 14 2005, 06:45 PM
Post #63


T-shirt wearing out
Group Icon

Group: Membersph
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2-July 04
From: Northeast New Jersey (New York Metro Area), USA ... Please read my sig. :)
Member No.: 2041



AOL indeed has broadband customers. Their "AOL for Broadband" and "AOL Over Broadband" services are described here.


--------------------
Best Regards, Jeff G. (full signature)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shmengie
post Mar 14 2005, 09:23 PM
Post #64


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 97
Joined: 19-February 05
Member No.: 3629



QUOTE(Jeff G. @ Mar 14 2005, 07:45 PM)
AOL indeed has broadband customers.  Their "AOL for Broadband" and "AOL Over Broadband" services are described here.
*

AOL works over broadband. Which a convoluted issue. When you read the fine print, *other charges* and/or *other contracts* may apply. Althought it sounds like a lot of users continue to use AOL even tho they not the Broadband provider...

AOL broadband customers are reported by spamcop as originating from their actual broadband provider, which really invalidates the comparision between AOL and Broadband providers.

This post has been edited by shmengie: Mar 14 2005, 09:30 PM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
elvey
post May 18 2005, 01:50 PM
Post #65


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 26-April 04
Member No.: 1300



QUOTE(petzl @ Mar 12 2005, 05:20 AM)
Sounds like rubbish to me? They have no customers or reputation that I know of? I do not see anybody but themselves touting their claims as true!

No reputation?
"On July 1, 2004, Kelkea, Inc. purchased the assets of Mail Abuse Prevention Systems, LLC."
If you haven't heard of MAPS, you, well.... MAPS was the ORIGINAL DNSBL (A.K.A RBL) based on the ideas of Paul Vixie/Dave Rand, its founder(s). MAPS reputation is well known.

Partering with an organized crime syndicate like SBC is not a good thing... But I just see them listed as a customer (which probably just means they use the MAPS blacklists). There's nothing wrong with taking SBC's money, IMO.

This post has been edited by elvey: May 18 2005, 01:53 PM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

4 Pages V « < 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

- Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th August 2014 - 09:51 AM