Re: spam with anti-bayesian parts

["Gismo C." <gismo () igor franken de>]

hi,

I just had a look at my latest spam, and wow, there are mails with 10-15 
lines of confuse sentence elements at the end. As it looks and google 
proved it is randomly taken from the net.

gismo


vogt () hansenet com wrote:
> 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