Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: spam with anti-bayesian parts
From: "Paul Farrow" <pfarrow () flamenetworks co uk>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 11:15:38 -0000
Ahhh! dont give the spammers ideas :o But I dare say it'd be harder to program a random spam message that needs to grab new text from a site, unless the site has an XML feed or something... no more ideas! i get enough free viagra, online meds, home remorgages, financial aid, and paris hilton sex tapes daily - i wonder how many filters just marked this as spam...
To wind up the earlier thread I started when I thought it might have been
a
misbehaving worm: The first spams with 2 lines of ad and 20 lines of random garbage words arrived in my mailbox yesterday, going cleanly through the bayesian
filters.
The explanations on this list are thus proven correct. The filters DID give them a 70% spam probability based on bayesian filtering, so I figure it will be a matter of some training and they'll go away. What I'm wondering is: Why do the spammers even go to the length of using random words? Those are easy to filter out with some heuristics (e.g. missing punctuation). Why don't they grab some real text, say from a news site? There's an endless supply of new, proper text out there. _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- spam with anti-bayesian parts vogt (Jan 12)
- Re: spam with anti-bayesian parts Paul Farrow (Jan 12)
- Re: spam with anti-bayesian parts José María Mateos (Jan 12)
- Re: spam with anti-bayesian parts Suresh Ponnusami (Jan 12)
- RE: spam with anti-bayesian parts Bojan Zdrnja (Jan 12)
- Re: spam with anti-bayesian parts Gismo C. (Jan 12)
- Re: spam with anti-bayesian parts Nick FitzGerald (Jan 12)
- Re: spam with anti-bayesian parts Jonathan A. Zdziarski (Jan 12)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: spam with anti-bayesian parts Feher Tamas (Jan 12)
- Re: spam with anti-bayesian parts Paul Farrow (Jan 12)