[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Asrg] RE: 2.a.1 Analysis of Actual Spam Data - Titan Key re duces spam attacks
Excellent. I agree that the "lets not do this because of the noise" may
render a lot of other simliar efforts null and void as well, so lets
keep this on. I think your below fits KISS and should be easy to
implement.
We need about 4-5 people to step up and "own" a given email address per
Tom's plan below. We'll provide the infrastructure.
Who will participate? Stand up now.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Thomson [mailto:tthomson@neosinteractive.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 4:12 AM
> To: Peter Kay; asrg@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Asrg] RE: 2.a.1 Analysis of Actual Spam Data -
> Titan Key re duces spam attacks
>
>
> I'm not convinced that the noise factor is so great that we
> can't get any useful information out of analysis. What I am
> sure of is that if that argument wins this time and this line
> of enquiry is dropped as a result, then most (maybe all)
> other lines of enquiry will go the same way. Until we have
> some measurements (quite a lot of measurements) we don't
> really know how big the noise factor is. Your original less
> than 100 days of data looked pretty noisy but all sorts of
> techniques are available for smoothing away noise; until
> there's enough dta, we don't know whether those techniques
> will prevail in the current case.
>
> An experimental approach would be to set up a number of email
> accounts and give them different degrees of exposure (some
> with repeated on-going exposure, some with initial exposure
> but no repeated exposure, some with exposure through
> "respectable" mailing lists only and some with exposure
> through "non-respectable" lists, some with newsgroup exposure
> (again "respectable" and "non-respectable"), and so on
> covering quite a lot of variations in exposure and a good mix
> of combinations of exposure. Then tyere's a need for a large
> number of email accounts with identical exposure; and each
> variant needs to occur (many times) in many different email
> domains (different ISPs, different countries, ...). Then
> some proportion of each similar block of acounts needs to
> start using 550 rejections straight away, some proportion
> needs to start using them after a few weeks, some proportion
> needs to never use them. After enough time (probably a year
> or so) there will be enough data to draw conclusions about
> the noise level from, and perhaps even to draw conclusions
> about the effectiveness of the 550 technique.
>
>
> Tom
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of Peter Kay
> Sent: 13 August 2003 17:07
> To: asrg@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Asrg] RE: 2.a.1 Analysis of Actual Spam Data -
> Titan Key re duces spam attacks
>
>
> Ok everyone, its decision time.
>
> ================ Summary of this thread ===============
>
> What we're trying to determine is: will "hard bounce"
> handling of spam (such as 550 no such user or 451greylisting
> response) reduce the amount of "spam attacks" to a given
> email address over time versus an email address that does not
> employ such tactics?
>
> The question is: what research process can we execute such
> that the results can be deemed reasonably reliable to
> prove/disprove what we're trying to determine?
>
> Our resident statistician, Terry Sullivan, basically says
> that the amount of noise on the data and the variances in
> spam make it difficult if not impossible to statistically
> prove the above unless the effect of the hard bounces is
> huge. And if the effect is so huge, why hasn't it already
> been figured out?
>
>
> =============== The issues at hand =========================
>
> 1) Do we continue to pursue this research topic?
> 2) If so, what process can we agree on to follow?
>
>
> ============== next steps ===========================
>
> This is a call to action to everone one this list to address
> the above issues. Lets see what responses we get over a
> week's time. If we get either a bunch of "no" or nothing at
> all, we're close this issue and move on. If, on the other
> hand, we get some positive responses that INCLUDE IDEAS ON A
> RESEARCH PROCESS, we can then gather those ideas into a
> research plan and then move to execute.
>
> ======= misc, but important additional info ================
>
> We've had at least 2 people lend some degree of assistance,
> Scott Nelson has offered to include researching the 550 on
> his experiments, and Damon Sauer has offered millions of
> emails worth of data. It's not entirely clear how either of
> these 2 would support the research process, but their
> offerings are at least certainly appreciated. Yakov has also
> mentioned that we have access to data from Brightmail and Postini.
>
> Paul Judge pointed to a few links out there related to what
> we're trying to research:
>
http://www.simplyquick.com/privacy.html#3
This is a report of what happened after subscribing to several
newsletters, performing normal actions on those newsletters (opening,
clicking, etc) and then unsubscribing. Result: no spam, but several
newsletters did not respect the unsubscribe request.
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/03/21/12ebsecret_1.html\
That talks about the results of another firm researching what HTML codes
do in spam mail AND WHAT EFFECT USING A 550 NO SUCH USER RESPONSE
(emphasis added) has on subsequent spam.
http://www.out-law.com/php/page.php?page_id=pressrele3360&area=about
The actual Web page of the firm conducting the research mentioned by the
infoworld article.
=========== YOUR ACTION ITEM ====================
(Yes, you. The subscriber to this.)
Duedate: on/before 8/21/03 12:01am GMT +0
Decide if issue #1 is worth pursuing and if so, think about a research
process (please make sure you KISS) and email that process in simple
bullet forms to this list. Positive responses must include bullet
points on a research process in order to be considered positive.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg