On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 12:33:02PM -0500, Len Budney wrote:
> James Smallacombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Selective filtering is ALL about pattern-matching.
>
> Correct, which is why it is flawed. If pattern matching were applied
> uniformly, then soon all spam will be 100% 822-compliant, and will
> originate only from hosts with valid MX records, and with exactly one
> envelope recipient and one envelope sender--which will be a valid
> email address.
>
> What will you match on then?
The same thing I filter on now: body text.
Want to know the absolute best ways of telling whether a message is
spam?
* Comes from a dialup: da.uu.net, dial-access.att.net,
ipt.aol.com, as.wcom.net, etc.
* Reference to "Section 301" or "Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S.1618"
* "This is a one-time mailing"
* "If (I have reached you|you have received this message) in error"
* "Authenticated sender" header in a message that doesn't come
from Pegasus or Eudora.
In principle, you are correct that this is an arms race, or that it
could be. In practice, I find that these rules catch about 80% of the
spam that moves into my systems, and the tweaks I have to place on my
filters have become infrequent and insignificant. Even though I agree
with you that it is not a workable long-term solution, in reality
pattern-matching is a tool that I cannot live without.
--
Regards,
Tim Pierce
RootsWeb Genealogical Data Cooperative
system obfuscator and hack-of-all-trades
