Abaca's radical anti-spam tech wins at Yahoo!

At the RSA Conference, I was almost blinded by the huge grins on the faces of the Abaca reps.

As you may recall, Abaca has a really interesting spin on the spam filtering problem. Finely-tuned mathematics and a big database of receiver statistics give back up some truly impressive claims. As I said last year, I'm reasonably convinced that it's not just a silly FUSSP.

For over a year, Abaca has been working on a deal with Yahoo! to add the technology—which they now call CLX—to the spam filtering mix. A few months ago, I heard unofficially that Yahoo! agreed to roll it out.

Now, Abaca is announcing that the rollout has been hugely successful, and Yahoo! is extremely satisfied with the result. Nice going.

As an update, here's the (claimed) highlights of the Abaca technology:

• Guaranteed accuracy of at least 99% catch rate (with money-back contract terms)
  
• Claimed false positive rate is infinitesimal (I calculate their claims equate to one in a million messages)
  
• After bootstrapping with recipient email statistics, no user training is required, but can be individualized by users clicking the Spam/Not-spam buttons
• By its nature, it's extremely scalable—a single small server can handle 90 million messages per hour

Of course, I can't verify these claims, but it would appear that Yahoo! effectively has.

Equally, I don't know how close to reality the false positive figures are -- at best they're based on user reports alone, which usually tend to significantly under-state the reality. But, again, if the Yahoo! user reports are anything close to 1:1,000,000, then Abaca has something really worth shouting about.

The Media is Bored with Spam?

I moderated a Ferris Research webinar earlier this week. It was intended to be a press-only event, to support a client's press release. Inevitably with these things, a few non-press register, but that's perfectly OK.

The client is a new spam filter vendor, that seems to have an interesting new twist on the problem (I'm reasonably convinced that it's not just a silly FUSSP).

The thing that really surprised me was how few press people turned up. In fact, non-press outnumbered the press folks two-to-one. What's up with that?

I also heard from the client's PR person (hi, Donna) that nobody has anything spam-related on their editorial calendars.

Doesn't the mainstream media care about spam any more? Certainly their readers do, as evidenced by the continuing churn in the spam filtering marketplace.

Any thoughts? Click the comments link below: I'm all ears.