[Bp_spam] Bp_spam Digest, Vol 10, Issue 4
Baudouin Schombe
baudouin.schombe at gmail.com
Fri Jun 12 12:42:26 EDT 2015
the proliferation of spam can be also included in the aspect of socio
cultural mind. Following a sample survey in the environment where I live,
I've realized 60% of users can not distinguish emails considered spam and
credible emails.
95% of spam relating to financial transactions: gains to win scholarships
with benefits, apply to calls with tempting financial conditionalities,
charities, to mention only these acts frequently used.
Over 30% were scammed because having believed these emails despite our
explanations.
Since 2013, another survey revealed that 40% of users have realized that
there are anarques but repeatedly fail to distinguish between spam and a
credible email.
With the rise of mobile internet, spammers are not reject but users are
focused by financial transactions by mobile phone. The contact person is
known and even contacted.
But the big problem is the level of new strategies developed by spammers
who are also scammers and other hackers camouflaged. They send emails with
references to websites imtelligemment designed with a wealth of information
that can easily tempt an unsuspecting user.
Given the multiplicity of such emails, the situation becomes more complex.
2015-06-12 17:00 GMT+01:00 <bp_spam-request at intgovforum.org>:
> Send Bp_spam mailing list submissions to
> bp_spam at intgovforum.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_spam_intgovforum.org
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> bp_spam-request at intgovforum.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> bp_spam-owner at intgovforum.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Bp_spam digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Working towards the first draft report (Christine Runnegar)
> 2. Re: Working towards the first draft report (Alejandro Pisanty)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 06:22:30 +0000
> From: Christine Runnegar <runnegar at isoc.org>
> To: Wout de Natris <denatrisconsult at hotmail.nl>
> Cc: IGF Spam <bp_spam at intgovforum.org>
> Subject: Re: [Bp_spam] Working towards the first draft report
> Message-ID: <3632AF58-F800-4389-A98B-7AE78CC8CB82 at isoc.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Thank you Wout and experts.
>
> Wout, the draft you have circulated outlines an ambitious plan, especially
> given the time constraints.
>
> So, at this stage, perhaps it would be useful to consider how to narrow
> the scope further.
>
> Christine
>
>
> > On 11 Jun 2015, at 12:40 am, Wout de Natris <denatrisconsult at hotmail.nl>
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Please find enclosed the kick off document for this BPF. At this stage
> the BPF experts invite the participants to consider and contribute to the
> streams identified in the document by responding to the IGF email group
> with their suggestions and submissions. It is envisaged that a framework
> for the first draft will be available for group collaboration soon.
> >
> > The IGF secretariat will soon open a workspace to place your views,
> additions and comments into. I will notify you as soon as possible on this.
> From these comments we will present the first draft of the report that is
> expected to go online ca. 15 July for your reference.
> >
> > The experts and I, as consultant, are looking forward to your
> contributions that will drive this body of work forward,
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Wout de Natris
> >
> >
> >
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > De Natris Consult
> > Raaphorst 33 Tel: +31
> 648388813
> > 2352 KJ Leiderdorp Skype:
> wout.de.natris
> >
> > denatrisconsult at hotmail.nl
> >
> > http://www.denatrisconsult.nl
> >
> > Blog http://woutdenatris.wordpress.com
> > <SPAM BPF streams
> document.docx>_______________________________________________
> > Bp_spam mailing list
> > Bp_spam at intgovforum.org
> > http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_spam_intgovforum.org
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 02:03:01 -0500
> From: Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty at gmail.com>
> To: Christine Runnegar <runnegar at isoc.org>
> Cc: Wout de Natris <denatrisconsult at hotmail.nl>, IGF Spam
> <bp_spam at intgovforum.org>
> Subject: Re: [Bp_spam] Working towards the first draft report
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAOxRbV8D+nik3V-uJB00B9pM9g-2Xx6jm+Jz-96EhgedjCEnaw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi,
>
> before we narrow that scope, or adding elements to choose from, let me
> mention a few points I think are worth considering (and will try to edit
> into the document):
>
> 1. We should be collecting from Direct Marketers what their rules of thumb
> are for metrics like the number of bounces any advertising email generates,
> and whether they check RBLs etc. to measure how badly (or not) they are
> being filtered.
>
> 2. The one driver of spam that is more unbeatable than sellers' and
> cheaters' greed is the unpreparedness of most recipients. We will speak
> about education etc. but it's mostly common sense that is missing.
>
> 3. APWG has an ongoing campaign called Stop, Think, Connect. Much of it
> would apply to spam as well as it does for phishing. The Group is reaching
> agreements with many organizations and governments; some will pan out. We
> should have them close to us or in this group to understand better and
> adopt what can be useful.
>
> 4. The economics of spam seems to reside largely on very low hit rate -
> but non-zero. Can the hit rate be made even lower? This would basically be
> boycotting spammers - and then, how would people do it without being
> accused of being in cahoots with the legit industries certain spam takes
> business away from, like pharma, tobacco, etc.? Or can we leave that piece
> of economics to them?
>
> 5. We haven't exhibited metrics. When I had the chance to implant antispam
> measures in a large organization a few years ago, we set metrics for false
> positives and false negatives. At the time, false positives were to be
> avoided at every cost but still that is unreachable; we settled for
> something like 0.1 % (i.e 1 in every thousand) legit emails would be lost.
> We reasoned that this was not a bad representation for mail that makes it
> through filters and still is lost for reasons like being overlooked, not
> replied on time, deleted by error, etc. (do any of you think you are better
> than that in your inboxes?) For false negatives we settled for like 50% but
> that was an in-house operation in 2005. That would be unacceptable today in
> services like Google or well-resourced private servers. Anything like this
> coming from others' research or experience?
>
> 4. Among other measures against the ill-effects of anti-spam, many users
> now (I'm looking at you, don't blush) have two or more email accounts, so
> even if important mail gets lost on one of them it will still make it to
> another one. What is the frequency and cost of this? is this a measure that
> can be recommended to users as general policy?
>
> 5. The ethics and tactics of SEO and SEO-like conducts merit a review under
> the light of spam and anti-spam.
>
> 6. The rift between DKIM and SPF years ago left us with an untenable
> position. Is anything on the IETF/technical side more promising? I continue
> to see criticism of DMARC for not running on the most general platforms.
>
> 7. Of course we need to pay attention to "new" spam (like blog comment spam
> was new...)
>
> Yours,
>
> Alejandro Pisanty
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 1:22 AM, Christine Runnegar <runnegar at isoc.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Thank you Wout and experts.
> >
> > Wout, the draft you have circulated outlines an ambitious plan,
> especially
> > given the time constraints.
> >
> > So, at this stage, perhaps it would be useful to consider how to narrow
> > the scope further.
> >
> > Christine
> >
> >
> > > On 11 Jun 2015, at 12:40 am, Wout de Natris <
> denatrisconsult at hotmail.nl>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > Please find enclosed the kick off document for this BPF. At this stage
> > the BPF experts invite the participants to consider and contribute to the
> > streams identified in the document by responding to the IGF email group
> > with their suggestions and submissions. It is envisaged that a framework
> > for the first draft will be available for group collaboration soon.
> > >
> > > The IGF secretariat will soon open a workspace to place your views,
> > additions and comments into. I will notify you as soon as possible on
> this.
> > From these comments we will present the first draft of the report that is
> > expected to go online ca. 15 July for your reference.
> > >
> > > The experts and I, as consultant, are looking forward to your
> > contributions that will drive this body of work forward,
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Wout de Natris
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > > De Natris Consult
> > > Raaphorst 33
> Tel:
> > +31 648388813
> > > 2352 KJ Leiderdorp Skype:
> > wout.de.natris
> > >
> > > denatrisconsult at hotmail.nl
> > >
> > > http://www.denatrisconsult.nl
> > >
> > > Blog http://woutdenatris.wordpress.com
> > > <SPAM BPF streams
> > document.docx>_______________________________________________
> > > Bp_spam mailing list
> > > Bp_spam at intgovforum.org
> > > http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_spam_intgovforum.org
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bp_spam mailing list
> > Bp_spam at intgovforum.org
> > http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_spam_intgovforum.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> Facultad de Qu?mica UNAM
> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
> +525541444475 DESDE M?XICO SMS +525541444475
> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_spam_intgovforum.org/attachments/20150612/3530bd45/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bp_spam mailing list
> Bp_spam at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_spam_intgovforum.org
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Bp_spam Digest, Vol 10, Issue 4
> **************************************
>
--
*SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN*
*COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC*
*ICANN/AFRALO Member*
*ISOC Member*
Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512
email : b.schombe at gmail.com
skype : b.schombe
blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_spam_intgovforum.org/attachments/20150612/4d1e5c54/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bp_spam
mailing list