[Gllug] Re: www.spews.org - spamming blacklist

[Doug Winter]

On Wed 11 Jun Nix wrote:
> in fact, with spam rates as high as they are now it might be usable as
> a sign of non-spam! :)
> 
> (I'll test that; it sounds just crazy enough to be true.)

A weird statistic (maybe it's generally the case) from our inbound MTAs
at work (using spamd log lines to determine spamicity):

Primary MX
    25344 total messages filtered
    19213 ham, 6131 spam
    75 pc ham
    24 pc spam
Secondary MX
    14367 total messages filtered
    3747 ham, 10620 spam
    26 pc ham
    73 pc spam
Totals
    39711 total messages filtered
    22960 ham, 16751 spam
    57 pc ham
    42 pc spam

What's weird is that only 1/4 of mail on the primary is spam, whereas
it's 3/4 on the secondary.  Ignore the rounding errors please.

Do you think spammers choose secondaries intentionally as being less
likely to have filters?  Or is it something I haven't thought of?

doug.

-- 
As soon as questions of will or decision or reason or choice of action
arise, human science is at a loss. -- Noam Chomsky

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/gllug/attachments/20030611/c4591f92/attachment.pgp>