On 16 Aug 2002 at 14:01, Michael C. Berch wrote:
> On Friday, August 16, 2002, at 01:10 PM, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > >
> <http://www.paulgraham.com/spam.html> > > It's a new technique for
> identifying spam. The more I look into the > details, > the more I
> think we have the "anti-spam killer app", becaues it tunes > itself >
> to the individual (or site), adapts as the anti-spammers adapt, and
> the > technique used is fairly easy to implement and damn difficult
> for a > spammer > to avoid....
> People have been talking about Bayesian filtering for spam for quite a
> while. It is definitely very promising. But the easiest way to
> defeat it -- which also works against sophisticated pattern-matching
> algorithms as in SpamAssassin -- is simply to make the payload of your
> spam an image, which cannot be turned into lexical tokens for Bayesian
> analysis. Even if a clickable link is appended, that will not provide
> sufficient information to declare something spam, since people send
> URLs to each other all the time. You can simply assert that a
> message consisting only of an image and a link is spam, but that's not
> Bayesian, that's just a semantic pattern.
However, given the dangers of unknown links in email,
and the nature of those who are sending only images and
links, or links to an image and other links, I think it's a
reasonable approach. No text message = no message
delivery is cool with me.
Mike
--
Mike Avery
MAvery@mail.otherwhen.com
ICQ: 16241692 AOL IM:MAvery81230
Phone: 970-642-0282
* Spam is for lusers who can't get business any other
way *
A Randomly Selected Thought For The Day:
I still don't have a handle on life, but I have its FCB.
References:
|
|
