OT: question re. the Volume of unwanted email (fwd)

Wed Jun 18 18:31:38 UTC 2003

Since 00:00 (EST)

      1	ACL from_senders_bogus
      1	ETRN Mail theft attempt
      1	ACL mta_clients_relay
      1	SMTP Exceeded Hard Error Limit after RSET
      1	ACL mta_clients_onedict
      2	SMTP Exceeded Hard Error Limit after MAIL
      4	ACL mta_clients_senders_regexp
      4	SMTP Exceeded Hard Error Limit after CONNECT
      7	ACL recipient at recipient.domain
      9	SMTP invalid sender at sender.domain
     21	ACL helo_hostnames
     42	SMTP unauthorized pipelining
     55	ACL mta_clients_slet
     64	SMTP Exceeded Hard Error Limit after DATA
     93	ACL mta_clients_bogus
    107	ACL to_recipients_dead
    148	ACL to_local_recipients unknown recipient
    354	ACL unauthorized relay
    426	ACL mta_clients_blaksender
    506	ACL mta_clients_dead
    594	ACL from_senders_nxdomain
   1054	ACL from_senders_black
   1125	DNS timeout for MTA PTR hostname (forged @sender.domain)
   1658	SMTP sender address verification in progress
   2251	ACL from_senders_black_regexp
   2678	ACL from_senders_slet
   2734	DNS no A/MX for @sender.domain
   3770	SMTP sender address undeliverable
   4572	RBL rbl-plus.mail-abuse.org
   4703	DNS nxdomain for MTA PTR hostname (forged @sender.domain)
   5152	ACL from_senders_imgfx
   5334	ACL mta_clients_bw
   9846	SMTP sender address unverifiable
  66969	SMTP Exceeded Hard Error Limit after RCPT
 217244	ACL to_relay_recipients unknown recipient

 331531	TOTAL

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Vixie [mailto:vixie at vix.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 2:04 PM
To: nanog at merit.edu
Subject: Re: OT: question re. the Volume of unwanted email (fwd)

jbates at brightok.net (Jack Bates) writes:

> While there is a cost to ISPs reguarding spam, the highest cost is still 
> on the recipient. End User's who are outraged by their children getting 
> pornography in email, or having trouble finding their legitimate emails 
> due to the sheer volume of spam that fills their inbox.

yes.

lartomatic=# select date(entered),count(*)
             from spam
             where date(entered)>now()-'20 days'::interval
             group by date(entered)
             order by date(entered) desc;
    date    | count 
------------+-------
 2003-06-18 |   505
 2003-06-17 |   873
 2003-06-16 |   644
 2003-06-15 |   621
 2003-06-14 |   667
 2003-06-13 |   396
 2003-06-12 |   696
 2003-06-11 |   517
 2003-06-10 |   673
 2003-06-09 |   616
 2003-06-08 |   421
 2003-06-07 |   398
 2003-06-06 |   558
 2003-06-05 |   534
 2003-06-04 |   616
 2003-06-03 |   464
 2003-06-02 |   555
 2003-06-01 |   677
 2003-05-31 |   378
 2003-05-30 |   642
(20 rows)

that's actually not too bad.  the trend is flattening after the Q1'03 surge.

> In this day and age, time is often more valuable than money and the
> assigned value is dependant on the individual. Unfortunately, end user's
> cannot just highlight and hit delete on spam. They must look at almost
> every email to verify that it is spam and not a business or personal
> email.  The misleading subject lines and forgeries are making this even
> more necessary.

let's not lose site of the privacy and property issues, though.  even if
all spam were accurately marked with "SPAM:" (or "ADV:") in its subject
line and there were no false positives, there is no implied right to send
it since it still shifts costs toward the recipient(s).  all communication
should be by mutual consent, and one way or another, some day it will be.
-- 
Paul Vixie