Slashdot Mirror


Zebras Get Less Spam Than Aardvarks

MojoKid writes "A recent study (PDF) by Richard Clayton at Cambridge University determined that the first letter of a someone's email address directly affects how much spam they receive. As shown in the graph at either link above, email addresses with numbers as their first characters receive even fewer spam emails. The corpus used in the study was 8 weeks' worth of email from the UK ISP Demon Internet, just over half a billion messages, of which 56% was deemed to be spam."

115 comments

  1. You know what this means by Shajenko42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Spammers will now alter their programs to start with "z" and numbers, so they can get the people who aren't as desensitized by spam.

    1. Re:You know what this means by jack2000 · · Score: 0, Informative

      What is this spam you speak of, I'm using Gmail and todate I haven't seen a single instance of this so called "spam".

    2. Re:You know what this means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hi. I note you don't publish your gmail address on /. Try that and then tell me about the spam you haven't seen.

    3. Re:You know what this means by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Gmail isn't perfect at filtering spam. I've received 35,214 spam messages in the last month. I estimate that Gmail failed to filter around 100 of them.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    4. Re:You know what this means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, its not gmail, but not displaying your email address on ./ does the trick, eh? I am sure all spammers are just combing ./ for email addresses. Here is my email address - lets see how good you are - you.are.a.douche@gmail.com

    5. Re:You know what this means by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nothing is perfect when it comes to this. But they are the best among all 'free' email providers I have used - by miles. Now get in and flag them as spam - next time, you may receive fewer.

    6. Re:You know what this means by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      So, its not gmail, but not displaying your email address on ./ does the trick, eh? I am sure all spammers are just combing ./ for email addresses.

      No, they are combing webspace in general, which includes /.. As well as dumb dictionary lists.

    7. Re:You know what this means by cypherwise · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm (incorrectly?) assuming this comment was facetious. 100/35,214 (that's 99.71%) is a pretty damn good ratio when it comes to this type of thing.

    8. Re:You know what this means by AngryLlama · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why would spammers look for email addresses in their own working directory (./)? I guess I am just not up-to-date on my spamming techniques.

    9. Re:You know what this means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is this spam you speak of, I'm using Gmail and todate I haven't seen a single instance of this so called "spam".

      It's that number tucked between 'All Mail' and 'Trash' over on the left of your screen. It might not be showing in your inbox, but you're getting some.

    10. Re:You know what this means by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      Gmail isn't perfect at filtering spam. I've received 35,214 spam messages in the last month. I estimate that Gmail failed to filter around 100 of them.

      Gmail's false positive rate for spam is so low that I don't even check anymore.

      I'd much rather have to bother with a spam or two a day making its way to the inbox, than a legit mail or two a week making its way into the spam folder.

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    11. Re:You know what this means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit!!!

      You received over 0.28% false negatives on your free e-mail account?! Those fucking Google spam-loving bastards and their weak spam filtering! Damn them to hell!

    12. Re:You know what this means by lysergic.acid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      but, like the article says, there are fewer people whose e-mail addresses start with z or numbers. so they'd be getting fewer hits by targeting those starting characters. there's already more spam messages being targeted at "zebras" per legitimate target than there are spam messages being targeted at aardvark addresses.

      so the smart thing for spammers to do is to stop wasting time with zebra addresses, since they'd have a higher chance of actually reaching a real mailbox by targeting more popular character ranges.

    13. Re:You know what this means by gerardolm · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Ah... sarcastic puns to point out other person's mistakes. Good job, sir.

    14. Re:You know what this means by Anders · · Score: 1

      Why would spammers look for email addresses in their own working directory (./)?

      It is not their own working directory, but spammers are indeed scanning directories for address books.

    15. Re:You know what this means by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      What is this spam you speak of? I'm using Gmail and todate I haven't seen a single instance of this so called "spam".

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    16. Re:You know what this means by arth1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think this might be a distant relative to Benford's law (the one that shows that about 30% of all counted numbers will start with the digit "1", not 10% as one might think).

      Going through some crack and john-the-ripper logs, I saw that there was a good correlation between the position in the alphabet not only for the passwords, but also for the user names.
      Based on pure letter frequency, you'd think that there would be a typical E-R-S-T-N ranking, but this doesn't appear to be the case for the initial letter. It appears to be far more often "a" than "e" or "s".

      (The letter "r" is special and overrepresented due to the "root" user ID not only being ubiquitous on Unix-like systems, but also being the prime target for crack and john.)

    17. Re:You know what this means by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Yeah, so that's a... ~0.00284% failure rate. That's amazingly good IMO.

      BTW, does anyone know the Alt+Numpad code in Windows for the "about equals" sign? (The one that is a squiggly =, or two ~ stacked on top of one another like some hot font lovin'.)

    18. Re:You know what this means by uncqual · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I find gmail almost perfect at classifying spam as such.

      Unfortunately, gmail is my only mail account where I feel I have to scan the spam "folder" every week or so to look for false positives -- of which there are a couple a month. My other accounts, which receive more mail and more spam (both as a percentage and an absolute number), have given so few false positives that I don't bother looking in the spam folders on those accounts.

      So, unfortunately, I end up looking at all the spam on gmail and just a little of it on other accounts. I don't think this is a win.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    19. Re:You know what this means by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Gmail isn't perfect at filtering spam. I've received 35,214 spam messages in the last month. I estimate that Gmail failed to filter around 100 of them.

      That's a 0.3% failure rate. My wife was good enough to marry, but she's no 9.997- still good enough for me.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    20. Re:You know what this means by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      I find gmail almost perfect at classifying spam as such.

      My first thought is that the rest of your post disproves this very first statement. But after careful consideration, I'm realizing that you are saying that "if it's spam, gmail will see it as such" but this says nothing about non-spam. To which, I offer the following as perhaps the perfect SPAM filter. It will categorically mark all spam as such, and will even delete it for you. Perfect detection!

      Just put the following into a file called ".forward" in your home directory, on a UNIX mail server:

      "> /dev/null"

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    21. Re:You know what this means by doogieb · · Score: 1

      8776 - just have a hunt in character map inside system tools and it tells you it's unicode hex value 2248.

      --
      Doogie. If you can read this, my sig fell off
    22. Re:You know what this means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt it. I get scads of spam now, and my primary email is "zaivalananda".

    23. Re:You know what this means by Candid88 · · Score: 1

      I agree they catch virtually all spam, but the reason I stopped using gmail was I found their spam-filter was catching a fair few genuine emails also (and not just the ones from my dad talking about his Viagra usage).

      Personally, I think spam filtering is an area where not junking genuine emails is far more crucial than catching a perfect 100% of spam emails.

    24. Re:You know what this means by Mozk · · Score: 1

      That would be 0.284%, not 0.00284%. Nonetheless that's still great, but remember to move the decimal separator! :-P

      --
      No existe.
    25. Re:You know what this means by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      I have half a dozen email addresses that have never received spam as well.

      The trick is to never give your the email address to anyone, post with your email address on /. and see what happens.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    26. Re:You know what this means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      â? thatâ(TM)d be alt+247 on windows; or option+x on mac.

    27. Re:You know what this means by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 1

      Agree. I have seen that happening too, but in my case, its hardly 5 to 6 times in last three years.

      What I am interested in knowing is what did replace gmail with? Who is better at this game?

    28. Re:You know what this means by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Hm, I did:

      100 / 35214 = 0.00283977blahblahblah

      Ah, you're right. I did forget to move the decimal point over. Still, a 0.284% failure rate is really good!

      Unsurprisingly, my math failure rate is actually much higher than that.

    29. Re:You know what this means by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      > Spammers will now alter their programs to start
      > with "z" and numbers, so they can get the
      > people who aren't as desensitized by spam.

      A or Z, just be glad your name isn't Lorenzo.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    30. Re:You know what this means by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      That depends on whether you work for Verizon or not.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    31. Re:You know what this means by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      I have half a dozen email addresses that have never received spam as well.

      I have an infinite number of email addresses that have never received spam!

      I used to have two infinities, but one of them started getting a significant finite number of addresses receiving spam, so I had to remove the catch-all for that domain. So much spam that my ISP had disabled my procmail filter for using too many system resources filtering my incoming spam.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    32. Re:You know what this means by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      So much spam that my ISP had disabled my procmail filter for using too many system resources filtering my incoming spam.

      My service provider shut down my catch-all for the excessive levels of spam,

      catch-all + Spam Assassin = Fun

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  2. Damn by AJWM · · Score: 0

    I guess that explains why I seem to get more spam than most.

    --
    -- Alastair
    1. Re:Damn by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Brute force attacks also start at 'a' - always. I have never seen one that starts at the end of the aphabet. So make sure that your user name and password are from opposite ends of the spectrum.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    2. Re:Damn by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Brute force attacks also start at 'a' - always. I have never seen one that starts at the end of the aphabet.

      I do all my brute force attacks with the California recall election alphabet: R, W, Q, O, J, M, V, A, H, B, S, G, Z, X, N, T, C, I, E, K, U, P, D, Y, F, L.

      "Now I know my R, W, Qs. Next time won't you sing with muse."

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  3. Unexpected by XanC · · Score: 1

    I can see why they'd start at the front of the alphabet, and why those folks would tend to get more spam.

    But wouldn't numbers sort even in front of the letter A?

    1. Re:Unexpected by xaxa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd guess that addresses with numbers at the beginning are often invalid, so they don't bother with them. I get spam attempts addressed to message IDs, which are generally something like 238947529345user@example.com.

    2. Re:Unexpected by stevey · · Score: 1

      I commented on this a few days ago - but I too see many many delivery attempts to email-like message IDs.

      I guess that means that somebody has a compromised machine which is being crawled, or perhaps a mailing list archive online has them visible.

      Highly irritating, but pretty easy to block.

    3. Re:Unexpected by nabsltd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think most of the spam targeted at a message ID comes from crawling USENET.

      On my server, I see lots of e-mail with a "rcpt to:" that matches the regex "(mpg\.)?[a-f0-9]+\@news\.domain\.com". This is the format that inn uses to create message IDs.

    4. Re:Unexpected by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      I think most of the spam targeted at a message ID comes from crawling USENET.

      I've had hundreds of spam attempts at my message IDs from Usenet postings, I get more delivery attempts to message IDs than to my real email address I post with.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  4. I bet this guy gets the least amount of spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We had an ex-city manager, who had a son named Zachary Z. Zoul.

    1. Re:I bet this guy gets the least amount of spam by eln · · Score: 4, Funny

      Did the city manager get fired because every time anyone tried to talk to him about city management, he would say, "There is no city manager, only Zoul"?

      I'm so sorry.

    2. Re:I bet this guy gets the least amount of spam by davidbrit2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, I think it was the sleeping above his covers thing that did it.

    3. Re:I bet this guy gets the least amount of spam by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Six feet above the covers!

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  5. This is silly by knappe+duivel · · Score: 4, Funny

    Zebra's and aardvarks don't eat Spam. Or ham.

    1. Re:This is silly by baKanale · · Score: 1

      Are they Jewish?

    2. Re:This is silly by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Are they Jewish?

      The aardvark is. Where do you think the double "a" came from?

      (Disclaimer: I am Jewish)

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    3. Re:This is silly by caluml · · Score: 1

      The first thing I thought of was that in German and Dutch, aard = earth.
      I looked it up, and yes, I'm right. Not sure if it was some amazingly funny ironic Jewish joke that I don't get, but hey, in case it's not, we've all been educated.

    4. Re:This is silly by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      No, it was me posting at an hour that I should have been sleeping. The only other English word that I know that begins with two "a"'s is the name Aaron, which is a Hebrew name.

      The wife is right. I'm not funny.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  6. What? by pablomme · · Score: 5, Informative

    The conclusion is ridiculous. There's more spam for addresses starting with 'a' than with 'z' because there is more traffic to those addresses. See the the graph. The line in the graph is the only solid piece of information, and it is just a lot of noise around the mean value of 56%; if anything, it indicates the opposite conclusion.

    --
    The state you are in while your HEAD is detached... - wait, what?
    1. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying that the Alberts of the world simply use email more than the Zeds? Did you ever think that maybe there is more traffic because there is more spam?

    2. Re:What? by Oidhche · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed. The conclusion that I'd draw from presented data is that there are more e-mail addresses beginning with 'a' than with 'z' (and that very few addresses begin with a number). Even the percentage of spam is nearly meaningless. To find anything about which addresses receive more spam, you should look at the average amount of spam per e-mail address in a given group, not the total number of messages.

    3. Re:What? by Oidhche · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No. Look at the data. It shows the total amount of messages received by Alberts and Zeds. It's painfully obvious that Alberts receive far more of both spam and genuine messages than Zeds. Not because the average Albert gets more messages than the average Zed, but because there are more Alberts than Zeds.

    4. Re:What? by 4thAce · · Score: 2, Informative

      According to the PDF, this graph is for all email addresses, not for 'real' addresses, which they define, more or less, as those addresses which receive at least one non-spam email every other day. Since they are looking only at Demon's logs, not the contents of actual mailboxes, they have to use this heuristic to filter out the bogus combinations that the spammers are trying.

      If they impose the condition that only 'real' addresses are considered, the graph changes to one with a higher percentage spam for A addresses than for Z addresses, as asserted in the summary.

      --
      Inventor of the LOLbalrog meme.
    5. Re:What? by eggnet · · Score: 1

      You are right.

      Additionally, everyone knows that spammers don't sort by the entire e-mail address, they group by the target domain name anyway for one of two reasons:

      1. to efficiently send bulk e-mail to one server for a lot of users.

      2. when trying to be stealthy, to spread out the e-mail to one mail server over time.

      Sure, you could sort e-mail addresses to weed out duplicates but ultimately you have to group them by domain name.

    6. Re:What? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      There being less spam naturally implies there is less traffic. Most traffic is spam; so if there were no spam, there would be very little traffic.

      Legitimate messages VS spam messages are completely different and non-spam traffic really has nothing to do with the total spam volume, except as a comparison tool; the traffic numbers that actually have to do with the spam problem are the number of spam messages.

      It's spam volume that really matters. If I get 10 messages, and 9 of them are spam, i'm much happier than if I get 1000 messages and 500 of them are spam.

    7. Re:What? by pablomme · · Score: 1

      There being less spam naturally implies there is less traffic.
      Most traffic is spam; so if there were no spam, there would be very little traffic.

      Look at the graph. Spam accounts for around 60% of the traffic for all groups of email addresses, regardless of total number of messages. My point is, it's likely that there are far more addresses starting with 'a' than with 'z', and that's all the data tells us. There is no proof of correlation between starting letter of the address and amount of spam.

      --
      The state you are in while your HEAD is detached... - wait, what?
    8. Re:What? by pablomme · · Score: 1

      If they impose the condition that only 'real' addresses are considered, the graph changes to one with a higher percentage spam for A addresses than for Z addresses, as asserted in the summary.

      But probably not significantly higher (the difference being greater than the noise). Again, the data tells us nothing interesting.

      --
      The state you are in while your HEAD is detached... - wait, what?
    9. Re:What? by PeterPlan · · Score: 1

      No, your interpretation of the graph is ridiculous. There is basically no noise at all. The sample size for "z" is about 5 million emails. The results are highly significant!

    10. Re:What? by pablomme · · Score: 1

      There is basically no noise at all. The sample size for "z" is about 5 million emails.

      So you think that 5 million is, magically, a "safe" sample size. For anything, using any method of measurement with or without deficiencies. Yeah, sure, why not.

      Even if it was, the total volume of spam is not a measure of anything significant. The volume of spam relative to the total volume is, which the line represents. And it shows no decrease as you move to the right, contrary to what they claim.

      --
      The state you are in while your HEAD is detached... - wait, what?
    11. Re:What? by repvik · · Score: 1, Funny

      Zed's dead baby, Zed's dead.

    12. Re:What? by repvik · · Score: 1

      Sign up to the LKML, and presto! Most of your mailbox is now non-spam ;)

    13. Re:What? by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Zed's dead baby, Zed's dead.

      Is that why he's not answering the Viagra mails?

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    14. Re:What? by Oidhche · · Score: 1

      It's spam volume that really matters. If I get 10 messages, and 9 of them are spam, i'm much happier than if I get 1000 messages and 500 of them are spam.

      On the other hand, if I got 1000 messages, I'd be much happier if 999 of them were spam than if only 500 were spam.

    15. Re:What? by rootooftheworld · · Score: 0

      As First Wizarad Zed Zeddicus Zul' Zorrander (from Terry Goodkings Sword of Truth series) must note that Im quite alive.

      --
      I know full well that tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack
    16. Re:What? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I think that would suck.. I wouldn't be able to tell for sure that only one (unimportant) message was legit ham without examining and discarding each of the 999 spam messages.

    17. Re:What? by VeNoM0619 · · Score: 1

      I don't know, I haven't seemed to get too much spam... Oh wait, I have 3 e-mail addresses... let me check this one.... Yep 400 since last year.

      --
      Disclaimer: I am not god.
      We may not be created equal
      But we can be treated equal.
  7. I'd hate to be "a someone" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds worse than being "a n other".

  8. Very little spam at demon.uk by Teun · · Score: 2, Interesting
    56% percent deemed spam?

    I thought most in the know see a far higher percentage, my ISP records over 95%:

    Xs4all statistics

    Makes me wonder about the rest.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    1. Re:Very little spam at demon.uk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow that means who just proved that domains starting with x receive more spam than ones starting with d

  9. Filters by Dakisha · · Score: 0

    I dnrta ; but I'd imagine that's down to the filtering of mail..

    The first x% make it through the filters; then they start getting flagged - be it by reports from the recipients (think AOL Scomp, etc), bouncebacks or by bayesian filters, etc - the spamtype is noted and starts getting blocked.

    If my assumptions are correct; a bright spammer would run a mix on his list so they're not in alphabetical order.

    The logic being - that those who receive lots of spam (the A's, B's, C's etc) have already started to take measures to block spam or have simply become desensitised to it. Mix it up and those in the M's, Q's, S's, etc start getting spam that previously never made it to their inbox.

    1. Re:Filters by xenocide2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed, the PDF paper says this is measuring the rate of filtering AFTER using Spaumhaus black holes, and the measured rate is their custom "Cloudmark" spam detection tool. Importantly, if their tool sucks enough that people opt out of it entirely, all email is considered "not-spam". But as long as these effects are not influenced by the first letter, that's okay.

      Unfortunately, the paper tries very hard to present a very silly notion about 'a' versus 'z'. The important concept here isn't order, it's letter frequency, and they should have sorted the letters by that to plot their regression.

      Effectively spam is a combination of email harvesting and email guessing. Harvesting email addreses contributes to spam, but probably builds lists closely resembling the distribution of valid inboxes. Guessing attacks generally do not reflect the distribution of letters used in the English language (the language of the ISP's host nation, and presumably most of the users and domains hosted). The assumption isn't that these attacks stop before they make it to Z, but that they overweight z*@example.com. So more spam is sent to those addresses per valid inbox than more common letters. And the paper goes on to say a lot of those land in nonexistant mailboxes relative to more populated leading inbox letters.

      They go on to try to quantify the difference but seem to fail for various reasons, including the aforementioned spamhaus.

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

    2. Re:Filters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>I dnrta

      Are you as annoying off line as well?

  10. wow by amnezick · · Score: 0

    how many e-mail addresses are there that start with a number??

    d`oooh

    --
    mov ax,4c00h
    int 21h
  11. The f*** article says otherwise by paulatz · · Score: 5, Informative

    I know nobody actually bothered to read it, but from the graph it looks like there are much more email addresses starting with an "a" than with a "z". The former get about as much spam as legit emails, while the latter get about 2 or 3 times more spam than legit emails.

    --
    this post contain no useful information, no need to mod it down
    1. Re:The f*** article says otherwise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      This is correct. And according to the Article, the Wallaby gets the lowest percentage of spam while the Zebra gets about the highest percentage of spam.

  12. My domains start with a by flyingfsck · · Score: 2, Insightful

    and yes they get tons of spam, about 99.999% of connection attempts are spam, but a couple of RBLs and Spam Assassin takes care of it. If I turn the protection off, then I get about 10,000 spams per hour, which seems to be a limitation of the server. If the server was faster, then it would probably get more spam. With the filters on, I get about 1 message per hour, which is more acceptable. I don't like the idea of RBLs, but I see no other way to handle the problem - if you are a spammer, then I don't want to talk to you - ever. Stupid idiots. It is also interesting that all brute force attacks that I have observed start at 'a'. So the best passwords will start with 'z'.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:My domains start with a by my+$anity++0 · · Score: 1

      but then if you are a clever hacker, you'll start your attack at 'z'

    2. Re:My domains start with a by flyingfsck · · Score: 0, Troll

      I haven't encountered a clever hacker yet. All start at 'a' for 'absolutely retarded'.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    3. Re:My domains start with a by maglor_83 · · Score: 1

      nobody ever expects the non-alphanumeric character.

  13. only 56%? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    I get more like 98% spam.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:only 56%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should get out more

  14. cat email_list.txt |sort -u | ./sendspam.pl by NynexNinja · · Score: 1

    email spammers also probably parse out email addresses that dont start with alpha characters...

  15. Sorry to break this to you. by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2, Informative

    But in the real world there is no such thing as perfection. It is a philosophical construct.

     

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Sorry to break this to you. by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      So, since God has every perfection, he doesn't exist (except in Descartes' mind)?

    2. Re:Sorry to break this to you. by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      I had Spam Assassin get it's first false positive ever, last week. It was an email from Microsoft.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    3. Re:Sorry to break this to you. by atraintocry · · Score: 1

      Correct.

  16. Signal to Noise ratio by aembleton · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From looking at that graph; it would be more interesting to see the signal to noise ratio for each of the letters and numbers. Those names beginning with an 'A' do indeed receive more spam, but also far more non-spam. In fact it looks to be more like 50:51 (non-spam : spam), whereas from first glance those email addresses beginning with a 'P' receive 40:60.

  17. Yes, the beginning of the alphabet gets more spam. by Dynamoo · · Score: 4, Informative
    Yes, the beginning of the alphabet gets more spam.. and it's really very simple to explain why.

    Spammers work from lists of email addresses, and those email addresses are typically sorted by domain and then alphabetically. So, the receiving domain gets a rush of emails for users with addresses beginning with A, B, C etc. But usually (at some point) many mail systems will detect that there is a spam attack in progress and they will block subsequent messages of the same format or from the attacking IP address (depending on the spam filtering setup in place).

    So, but simply the people beginning with "A" get nice new spam that the adaptive filters don't detect. By the time it gets to "Z" a good filter will automatically block the attack.

    What's sad is that I watch spam attacks often enough to know this.

    --
    Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
  18. Well thank you very much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just opened an email starting with 'z' you insensitive clod!

  19. Misleading, and wrong by gerardolm · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who actually paid attention to the graph? Yes, sure, the "overall" spam amounts for A is much bigger than for Z, but that is because there are more email addresses that start with the letter A than those starting with the letter Z. If not, check how spam/non-spam percentages all stay withing the 50%-75% interval.

    In other words: more email messages = more spam, "OH GOD!!11ONE let's write a paper!"

    Slow news day?

  20. That explains a lot by Zerth · · Score: 1

    I rarely get spammed, even on hotmail

    1. Re:That explains a lot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I get tons, even on Gmail!

  21. 56% sounds low by shitzu · · Score: 1

    My servers get at least 95% identified (and blocked) spam vs. ham across ~200 domains that have different characteristics. And i know that some of them slip through the filters also.

  22. Spam? by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

    Spam? wot that?

    1. Re:Spam? by zaren · · Score: 1

      My sentiments exactly. I have this username as an account name on another system, and I honestly get about one spam a week to that account. Maybe there's something to this z thing.

      --
      Come to the University of Mars! Classes starting soon!
  23. Zzwyggle by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    With two z's.

    "But my name really is ZZwyggle!"

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  24. Oh really? by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just created the e-mail address zh80lukgwggok4kko0kcbrhjm@hotmail.com (yes, seriously)

    Now, let's see if that holds true.

    1. Re:Oh really? by pablomme · · Score: 1

      I just created the e-mail address zh80lukgwggok4kko0kcbrhjm@hotmail.com (yes, seriously)

      And posting it on the web is a great idea to avoid spam.

      --
      The state you are in while your HEAD is detached... - wait, what?
    2. Re:Oh really? by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

      My post was suppose to be on the humour side. I am surprised it was moderated as interesting. More importantly, if people had some random characters in their e-mail addresses, there would be a less likely chance of getting hit by those using dictionary-based attacks.

      As of right now, no mail has came in.

    3. Re:Oh really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a liar, zh80lukgwggok4kko0kcbrhjm was available until i just registered it.

      But why did you include the "(yes, seriously)" if you didn't really register it? You are a strange, strange guy.

    4. Re:Oh really? by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      That's the whole point: he needs it to be harvested.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    5. Re:Oh really? by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

      You must be joking or something. I said: zh80lukgwggok4kko0kcbrhjm@hotmail.com

      I did register it. I can log into it. I see someone has already sent me spam, but I dare not click it.

    6. Re:Oh really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My email address is ~#()&% £$@!!!!1.'{} and I've never had spam. Ever.

    7. Re:Oh really? by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      I sent you some spam as well, I guess this disproves the article :)

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    8. Re:Oh really? by pbhj · · Score: 1

      Me, on bad phone line: My email address is z;45-r_0oisdgf*yihh@hotmail.com
      Person: Wtf??? Can I read that back.
      Person: zcolonfortea5 ...
      Me, interrupting: No, hang on it's z ;, as in the symbol, 4 5 - r _ ...
      Person, repeating as we go: z ; 4 5 dash r underscore ....

      Result — I never get ham because noone can ever transcribe my address.

  25. Even spammers know.. by The+Creator · · Score: 2, Funny

    Zebras already have big penises!

    --

    FRA: STFU GTFO
  26. Ptooey! I SPIT on your spam cowardice by Aaron+Aardwolf · · Score: 1

    No spammer has ever bothered me!
    I worship the letter "A" and sneer at these pantywaist spammers!

    Aardvarks will NEVER give in to threats of spam!
    Nor we aardwolves!
    .

    --
    - Aaron A. -
    Bringing Pinoqachole to the natives since 1643.
  27. Well hung zebras... by HeadlessNotAHorseman · · Score: 1

    The reason zebras get less spam is because the spammers know that they are already hung like a horse!

    --
    I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
  28. soon to be known as zealous zebra by arbitraryaardvark · · Score: 1

    So that explains it!
    - arbitrary aardvark.

    +3 funny, sad.

  29. Am I the only one... by capn0jack · · Score: 1

    ...who thinks this is nonsense? The spam/ham ratio isn't really conclusive, and that's what matters, right? Thanks, Chaz