> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 2:25 PM
> To: Chris Santerre
> Cc: 'Duncan Findlay'; [email protected]
> Subject: rule secrecy, spammer evasion (was Re: PROPOSAL: create
> "SpamAssassin Rules Project")
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> Chris Santerre writes:
> > > I'd like to see the data that supports this claim. I'm really
> > > skeptical.
> > 
> > Whens the last time you got a hit on Mr_Wiggly ruleset? 
> 
> Bear in mind, the SARE ruleset is not the only filter in the world
> that is attempting to catch that spam.   AOL, Yahoo!, Hotmail, GMail,
> Brightmail, etc. etc. are also attempting to catch it, and the
> spammer is also mutating his spam to evade *them*.

Don't get me started on where *those* people got some of *their* rules from!
Some of *those* people never even bothered to rename the rules!

> 
> - From all the research I've read and people I've talked to 
> about this, the
> spammers are a *LOT* more concerned with evading *those* 
> filters than they
> are about piddly little SpamAssassin.  Especially the AOL case -- some
> spammers are dedicated 7 days a week to getting past that single ISP's
> filters.

Which is why SA retains such a great hit rate weeks after a release????????

> 
> > We never saved data on this. But if you ask ANY SARE 
> member, they will
> > backup this claim. Or better yet, go ahead and start a new 
> rule discussion
> > in the SATALK list. Pick a spam flag and go for it. See how 
> long it takes
> > for that flag to go bye bye ;) 
> 
> OK, let's pick one ;)  From the top hitters on my corpus in the
> last mass-check:
> 
>  12.063  17.4637   0.0000    1.000   0.98    4.14  
> MIME_BOUND_DD_DIGITS
> 
> grep MIME_BOUND_DD_DIGITS spam.log | perl -pe \
>         's/^.*\btime=//; s/,.*$//;' > times
> 

Ahhh...now I understand why you sent this. I got confused. I didn't read
this email first. I would consider this a bad rule to go by. Why?

This IMHO is more a ratware flag. Spammers, more likely sock puppets, don't
understand or bother with this as much as the easier 'body content' stuff. 

So for instance if you write a rule looking for the phrase "buy m0rtgag3s
h3r3", Mr Sockpuppet can easily understand that aspect and change his body
payload to avoid. 

But I doubt many will understand the ratware setup of a mime boundry.

--Chris 

Reply via email to