Name (required):

  Expression ^{(Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)}

  E-mail address (optional):

Type your message here:
>In article <48SdnRVPEMsUaGuiRVn-sA@bright.net>, >usenetharvested@2mbit.com >says... >> Fruns Dimerik wrote: >> > Is the Spam Can Act having its effect? I do notice >a difference since >> > Jan 1: my Yahoo mailbox has dried up, only >Nigerian scammers are >> > getting through, although less so than before. >Another US based >> > mailbox doesn't get spam either. But I do get spam >on an >> > international mail account, based outside the US. >> > >> >> The live stats at www.postini.com have *increased* >2% since Jan 1. >> >> This is a much more accurate measure, as Postini is >a mix of a vast mix of >> different types of email accounts, from ISPs to >corporate LANs to schools, >> etc. > >Here's a different viewpoint: my mailserver uses >numerous block lists, >but does no content filtering. As a result, the ones >that get through are >nearly always coming from previously-unlisted ip's >(presumably trojan- >infected proxies). > >Since Jan 1 the total spamload hasn't especially >dropped, but the mix has >changed substantially - at this point nearly the only >ones getting >through are pillspams (mostly viagra-and-such with >some general pharmacy >as well). I haven't seen a mortgage/debt spam and even >the Paris Hilton >stuff has dropped out. > >Two possible theories (with no evidence for either): > >1. Do Pill spams offer a higher pay, so are worth the >increased risk and >trouble, and thus attract more spammers? > >2. Pill spammers had already moved offshore (read: >China) in larger >numbers than the others, so have suffered less >interruption by suddenly- >nervous domestic ISP's?

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.