Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: spam with anti-bayesian parts
From: "Jonathan A. Zdziarski" <jonathan () nuclearelephant com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:58:36 -0500
What I'm wondering is: Why do the spammers even go to the length of using random words?
It still works on poorly written bayesian filters and some heuristic based filters. But spammers are stupid: they don't realize that they are also providing a much easier way to identify them for everyone using the more modern filters.
. Why don't they grab some real text, say from a news site? There's an endless supply of new, proper text out there.
Some do, but it still ends up having the same effect. The unknown tokens are not paid particular attention to until the filter learns that these now words are used mostly in spams. Some filters are now paying attention only to the HTML portion of a message, if it exists, as many spammers are putting their Bayesian noise in the text segment. This reportedly helps accuracy. _______________________________________________ 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)