More Evidence Can-Spam Isn't Canning Spam
from the but-why-the-discrepancy dept
Last week, we had a story about an anti-spam company that checked out 1,000 spam emails and determined that only three complied with the new CAN-SPAM law. This week, a different anti-spam software company did the exact same study and, while they came up with the same overall conclusion (CAN SPAM isn't working), their survey revealed 102 out of 1,000 spam messages complied with the law. Either a lot more spammers started complying over the course of the past four days, or one (or both) of these studies is likely to be flawed in how they picked their "representative" spam.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
Or, a third option, that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics...
1,000 emails is not a scientific representation of all emails out there, since in most cases the spam is that which the reporter receives to base their statistics on. Even if someone was able to manage to grab all the possible SPAM messages out there for one particular day, and remove all the duplicates, they would still not get a good representation of the SPAM as some spammers may only send messages on a certain day or set of days which may fall outside of the scope the author of the statistics was testing within.
Unless the statistics are based over a larger time period, with more of a representative amount, any numbers they come up with will make little sense to analyze for commonalities. The MX Logic article stated "MX Logic looked at a random sample of over 1,000 unsolicited commercial emails during the course of a seven day period beginning New Year�s Day and found only three of the messages complied with the CAN-SPAM Act." Considering the fact that many spammers probably took a vacation after the Christmas madness, the numbers may be bogus. The Audiotrieve announcement doesn't even give a time period, meaning that they could have started collection the 8th, or later, when spammers started spamming again.
However, if these folks continue their survey over time, and average the results, we will probably get a much better picture of the reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time period
[ link to this | view in chronology ]