wood cat

kate_nepveu


incidents and accidents, hints and allegations


wood cat
Kate kate_nepveu
Previous Entry Share Next Entry
These are your spam statistics on drugs.

That problem I was having yesterday with someone blasting spam out with fake steelypips return addresses, so that all the bounced spam inundated my mail e-mail account? I thought I'd fixed it on my own, and then real mail started bouncing. So I undid the fix and had my spam program, Mailwasher, filter and automatically delete any mail that didn't have a real address in the To: or CC: fields—for just over 24 hours, until an incredibly kludgy fix went into place. Mailwasher's statistics for the week look like this:

Yes, this should really be a bar graph, and yes, those units on the left are correct: over eighteen thousand messages deleted today.

Spammers suck.

Tags:

sloanesomething

2005-04-24 03:52 am (UTC) (Link)

...wow. That's...a really....damn.

kate_nepveu

2005-04-25 02:18 pm (UTC) (Link)

And we're just a little domain, too.

missysedai

2005-04-24 03:53 am (UTC) (Link)

<*blink*>

Holy hell. It has never ocurred to me to look into how much spam the filters at DFN actually catch...now I'm afraid to!

kate_nepveu

2005-04-25 02:19 pm (UTC) (Link)

Well, until this happened, we were getting maybe a couple hundred messages a day over all of the addresses? Not enough to bother with a server-side solution, at any rate. So it might not be that bad for you guys.

montoya

2005-04-24 04:45 am (UTC) (Link)

I got one of those thrilling spam-bounce things a while ago, too. A few new SpamAssassin rules and a new willingness to use /dev/null, and voila. Situation rectified.

I find it vaguely irritating that I've developed an elaborate regimen of spam filtering, classification, and disposal. Remember when people used to get outraged about getting a single spam?

kate_nepveu

2005-04-25 02:22 pm (UTC) (Link)

I briefly flirted with SpamAssassin yesterday--our host provides it--but I couldn't seem to be able to check the spam mailbox, which I'd want to be able to do. I don't want to just blackhole improperly-addressed mail, either, since people _do_ occasionally misremember our addresses--it's happened at least once in the last few months.

I was on .edu addresses long enough that, when I moved off them, I knew I was going to get some spam, and my current regime is very simple and usually sufficient. It was the suddenness and magnitude of this that got to me.

nancylebov

2005-04-24 09:03 am (UTC) (Link)

Good God. At least you don't have to use a log graph.

Who'd have thought that it being easy for people to have a combined home post office and printing press would work out like this?

kate_nepveu

2005-04-25 02:24 pm (UTC) (Link)

As was said Boskone a couple years ago, when _Neuromancer_ came out one might've run out and got plugs, but now one would run out and get a brain firewall.

jsbowden

2005-04-25 12:32 pm (UTC) (Link)

Be glad you're only seeing 18k/day.

When I was the postmaster for HTML.com back in the late 90s, someone forged our domain as the sender and at peak we were seeing a couple hundred thousand bounces per day.

kate_nepveu

2005-04-25 02:25 pm (UTC) (Link)

Wuff. Of course, html.com is a sexy domain name; we're just a little fish, and I thought fairly obscure. Ah well, no major harm done, though the kludgy fix continues to be a source of minor irritation.

You are viewing kate_nepveu