Re: Bit OT but it's about SPAM

Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On 10/17/07, Randal, Phil <prandal@herefordshire.gov.uk> wrote:

>> Hyperbole?
>>
>> Well, let's take a look at the figures on my mail relay boxes

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.