Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Are we winning?

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Martin Edwards

unread,
Apr 4, 2008, 4:08:59 AM4/4/08
to
I notice a big reduction in spam over the last year or so. Do others
have the same impression?

Bar0

unread,
Apr 4, 2008, 9:38:04 AM4/4/08
to

"Martin Edwards" <big_m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ft4nmq$856$1...@news.spamcop.net...

>I notice a big reduction in spam over the last year or so. Do others have
>the same impression?

No, take a look at the Statistics page

Miss Betsy

unread,
Apr 4, 2008, 6:44:30 PM4/4/08
to

"Martin Edwards" <big_m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ft4nmq$856$1...@news.spamcop.net...
>I notice a big reduction in spam over the last year or so. Do others have
>the same impression?

Spam ebbs and flows. My theory is that the list you were on was sold to
someone else who hasn't started using it yet. Whenever someone says that
'my' spam has dropped, there is someone else whose spam has escalated.
Another reason spam drops is that your ISP has instituted a new filtering
program that is bettter.

Miss Betsy


Farelf

unread,
Apr 4, 2008, 8:50:06 PM4/4/08
to
Miss Betsy wrote:

<snippage>


> Whenever someone says that
> 'my' spam has dropped, there is someone else whose spam has escalated.

Truth, causality left aside for the moment (doesn't matter in the
development of the argument).

> Another reason spam drops is that your ISP has instituted a new filtering
> program that is bettter.
>
> Miss Betsy
>
>

Also true. So, total reported/observed spam trending upwards (alluded
to by an earlier poster), "unobserved" spam probably going through the
roof (else why the frenetic - on mostly anecdotal evidence to be sure -
ISP filtering?).

Spam in the inboxes of many is indeed reduced, that is for those using
the available resources for the purpose, but the cost? Nobody really
knows. A fruitful field for learned dissertation.

<rant>But are we winning? Depends on the definition of winning but not
by my definition. The waste, ah the waste! The economics of internet
operation has little/nothing to do with the reduction of spam - and,
arguably, quite a bit to do with its preservation or even increase.
After all, the consumer pays (not the providers, nor the spammers) and
"the consumer" (of spam) is all of us, all unwilling, one way or another.

Maybe someone can figure the greenhouse gas emissions behind a day's
worth of (estimated) spam production and dissemination and "treatment"
to focus some serious attention on the blight. The mere loss of life
doesn't seem to be enough (as from fake pharms, an industry partially
supported by spamvertizing - just Google 3 words - counterfeit
pharmaceuticals death).</rant>

But enough of doom and despondency already. That increasingly rare
meteorological phenomenon "rainfall" is occurring outside my window.
Excuse me while I shed my clothes and disport myself within the deluge.
Ah, too late. Next time.

Miss Betsy

unread,
Apr 4, 2008, 10:17:05 PM4/4/08
to

"Farelf" <us...@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:ft6ibs$783$1...@news.spamcop.net...
<snip>

> But enough of doom and despondency already. That increasingly rare
> meteorological phenomenon "rainfall" is occurring outside my window.
> Excuse me while I shed my clothes and disport myself within the deluge.
> Ah, too late. Next time.

There's another cycle - rainfall. Some places have too much; others, not
enough.

I am sure the people in Missouri would let you have some of theirs if they
could.

Miss Betsy


Martin Edwards

unread,
Apr 5, 2008, 2:49:41 AM4/5/08
to
Also, by changing providers I got rid of the worst affected account. On
the other hand, I am not even getting very much on the Yahoo account above.

Eönwë

unread,
Apr 5, 2008, 3:47:47 AM4/5/08
to

Not just no, but HELL NO!

Over the past year, the daily amount of spam that I get - most of it
direct to my SpamCop account - has damn near gone up by a factor of
four.

There are reports - completely unsubstantiated, as far as I've seen -
that say that 95% of all email traffic is spam. I believe them; that's
probably pretty close to the percentage I get at all of my email
accounts combined.
--
Eönwë
(SpamCop subscriber, not staff/admin)

Miss Betsy

unread,
Apr 5, 2008, 1:03:19 PM4/5/08
to

"Martin Edwards" <big_m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ft77e4$rqi$1...@news.spamcop.net...
<snip>

> Also, by changing providers I got rid of the worst affected account. On
> the other hand, I am not even getting very much on the Yahoo account
> above.

Changing providers isn't the trick. It is changing email addresses. It is
best to use an alphnumeric one that can't be guessed by the dictionary
spammers. Also, if you continue to use your address in ways that it can be
harvested, it will be picked up by the spammers again. Unfortunately, it
isn't enough to not post it on websites or use an alternate for purchases,
etc. on the internet. Spammers can harvest email addresses from your
correspondents' computers if they are infected. An email address that I was
very careful with, except for using it with people who like to FW FW,
finally started receiving spam when someone got a virus. (this was before
the time when most ISPs filtered viruses out so that I know it was harvested
by a virus because I also received the virus emails. It took me several
weeks to find someone who would stop the viruses from coming. The abuse
addresses I could find never responded, but I knew someone who worked at the
same company it was coming from and asked him to tell his IT Dept.)
Spammers are also mixing and matching user names with domain names so that
if you used the same one as before, you might get spam again.

Miss Betsy


0 new messages