spamassassin-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <spamassas...@dostech.ca>
Subject Re: xxxl spam
Date Thu, 13 Apr 2006 06:34:59 GMT
Mark Martinec wrote:

> The most interesting part in my view is not the IP distance, but the
> type of OS, illustrated by the following table (derived from the same
> data as fig2):
> 
>     p0f OS guess    ham :   spam
>     -----------------------------
>     Windows-XP    0.7 % : 99.3 %
>     Windows-2000  5.8 % : 94.2 %
>     UNKNOWN      16.5 % : 83.5 %
>     Linux        58.8 % : 41.2 %
>     Unix         80.3 % : 19.7 %
>     (Unix+Linux  66.5 % : 33.5 %)
> 
> Only 0.7% of all mail coming from Windows-XP hosts is ham!!!
> It is an ideal information to contribute two or three score points.

I'm not sure the ham hit rate from the Windows-XP category scales (to 
other installations) very well.  The last time I looked into using p0f 
to fingerprint connecting hosts, last spring, I seem to recall that 
Windows XP and Windows 2003 share the same TCP/IP stack and fingerprint 
identically.

While it'd be nice to be score "Windows-XP" hosts harshly, there's a lot 
of mail coming from Windows Server 2003 hosts that would get hit.

I know for some of my systems 1:99 would be really low if Windows Server 
2003 and XP are identified the same.  40:60 (and in some cases 80:20) 
would be closer to what I often see if I were to assume that all spam 
came from Windows XP hosts.

Maybe you don't receive much, if any, mail from Windows Server 2003 hosts?


Daryl

Mime
View raw message