[SC-Help] Re: What's wrong now, Spamcop?

[Garen Erdoisa]

Mike Easter wrote:
> Garen Erdoisa wrote:
>> Mike Easter wrote:
>>> Garen Erdoisa wrote:
>>>
>>>> The spamtrap data is not included on the statistics charts they make
>>>> available to the public.
>>> How do you know that?  I always assumed that it did.  Or rather that
>>> the statistics were some 'subset' of the total spam processed, but
>>> not
> 
>> Quote from http://members.spamcop.net/spamstats.shtml
> 
> Not only did I read that par, I cited a sentence from it.  But I will
> leave the par cited below so that we can all look at it again.
> 
>> <quote>
>> These graphs show the number of messages submitted as spam along with
>> the number of reports consumated regarding those messages. This data
>> reflects more about SpamCop's usage patterns than it does about the
>> spam. These numbers now reflect only a small fraction of total spam
>> being processed by SpamCop, but they are still representative of the
>> total. </quote>
>>
>> It's pretty clear to me with that statement on the website that the
>> graphs do not include spamtrap data or data from other sources.
> 
> Data from other sources?  That isn't even being debated here.  The data
> is reflective of spamcop spam, not some other spam.
> 
> But the par above and the information from the rest of that page and
> others doesn't convince me of what is apparently 'clear' to you that the
> graphs do not include spamtrap data.
> 
> There isn't anything in the par you cited that sez anything about
> spamtrap data one way or the other.  The par only sez that the data
> shows a small fraction of spam being processed.  It gives no clue about
> which fraction.
> 
>> Combine that with what Don D'Minion just admitted in his post further
>> up in this thread about spamcop processing about 3 million emails per
>> day, the rest is deductive reasoning based on the information I have
>> available.
> 
> The fact that he used the term 3 million and the fact that the stats
> show less only confirms that there is a subset, which is what the
> sentence I cited said, not how the subset is 'chosen'.
> 
>> Don D'Minion just stated in his post further up in this thread that
>> spamcop process about 3 million spams per day. Again, the rest is just
>> deductive reasoning.
> 
> I am debating the quality or accuracy of your deductive reasoning.
> 
>> He's posting as a spamcop admin, so I would tend
>> to trust his statement as being somewhat factual since he does have
>> access to insider knowledge.
> 
> I'm not saying his information isn't factual -- I'm saying you are
> making unwarranted assumptions from the 3 million term, from the subset
> concept, and from the numbers shown on the graph.
> 
> I don't know how it makes any difference one way or another if we are
> looking at a set of stats and the stats don't represent all of the data
> which data or which fraction of which data is 'left out' if it is
> acknowledged that all of the data isn't there.  In fact, only a 'small
> fraction' of the data is shown.
> 
> A /small/ fraction?  Is a small fraction 1% or 10% or 50% or what?  A
> 'fraction' implies a fraction or a part, which one might think of as
> being 'not all' but a 'significant' or noticeable fraction -- certainly
> not a 'sizeable' fraction.  But when you start saying a *small*
> fraction, it makes me think of something perhpas less than 25% or even
> below 10% -- whereas a 'tiny' fraction might be more in the 1% range.
> 
> If the 3 million figure were actually representative of the last week or
> so, during which 5 million spams were shown on the 7 day graph, then the
> fraction would be about 25% -- and saying 25% is a 'small' fraction
> would be OK with me.
> 
> But, I think that if you were to 'insist' on saying that the graph is
> showing some subset of reporter reports and no spamtraps, or insist on
> saying that the graph is showing all of the reporter reports and no
> spamtrap reports and therefore 75% of the spam processed is from
> spamtraps, then I would 'insist' on saying your assumptions are
> unwarranted.
> 
> 

Mike;

I have a respect for your mind, thought processes and opinions. Though I 
don't post that often, I do read these boards and have read many of your 
posts.

I really don't think that we are in disagreement here, as I stated in my 
post quoting myself "These are my thoughts on this issue". That means 
that it's my opinion. No where in it did I say or even suggest that my 
opinion was a fact. You seem to have inferred otherwise.

Garen