>While all of that is true, IF his claims were true (an idea could
>magically detect any spam trying to sell you something) would you walk
>away from a magic pill that completely and perfectly identified one
>particular type of spam and didn't hit any ham?
Yeah, because the next day the spammer
On 25/01/16 08:57, Dave Warren wrote:
> Bayes is good at categorizing mail, but I don't think "Trying to sell
> something" is necessarily even a spam-sign, lots of legitimate and
> desired mail is trying to sell me something too. At the same time,
> everything I've read about this new method seems
On 2016-01-22 19:24, John R Levine wrote:
What get's spammers caught is that eventually they
have to sell you something
Gee, did we drop through a wormhole into 1998 or something?
He's missing a few somethings.
Spammers might not be trying to sell you something.
No kidding. The classic exa
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 3:23 AM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
> If you're doing it just on the subject, ok I'll go with that..
There's an MSc Thesis by Chris Kopsidas (then a student at the
University of Athens, back in 2012) where we worked explicitly on
subject lines of spams that went past SpamAss
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016, Marc Perkel wrote:
Here is a list of 3494938 words and phrases used in the subject line of
SPAM and never seen in the subject line of HAM
http://www.junkemailfilter.com/data/subject-spam.txt
Well besides all the other objections, I can see all sort of bugs in that
corpus
What get's spammers caught is that eventually they
have to sell you something
Gee, did we drop through a wormhole into 1998 or something?
He's missing a few somethings.
Spammers might not be trying to sell you something.
No kidding. The classic example is pump and dump, where they're trying
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:02 PM, John Levine wrote:
> > What get's spammers caught is that eventually they
> >have to sell you something
>
> Gee, did we drop through a wormhole into 1998 or something?
>
He's missing a few somethings.
Spammers might not be trying to sell you something.
They cou
> What get's spammers caught is that eventually they
>have to sell you something
Gee, did we drop through a wormhole into 1998 or something?
R's,
John
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 09:01 -0700, Brielle Bruns wrote:
> I'm trying to find that checklist that the spam fighting regulars used
> to post whenever someone is all excited about their end-game to spam
> filtering... Anyone remember a URL for it?
Po
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 09:01:29AM -0700, Brielle Bruns wrote:
> As someone who has been involved in spam fighting stuff since 1999
> or so, hate to burst any kind of magical bubbles, but "been there,
> done that".
1983, back when we called it "mass mail abuse" and other similar things.
FUSSPs wer
On 1/22/16 9:24 AM, Neil Jenkins wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016, at 11:01 AM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
I'm trying to find that checklist that the spam fighting regulars used
to post whenever someone is all excited about their end-game to spam
filtering... Anyone remember a URL for it?
http://craphou
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016, at 11:01 AM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
> I'm trying to find that checklist that the spam fighting regulars used
> to post whenever someone is all excited about their end-game to spam
> filtering... Anyone remember a URL for it?
http://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt I presume.
N
On 1/21/16 1:45 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
Just to follow up on this. I'm in the process of improving the filter.
But I have filed my provisional patent so i'm going to give you an
overview of how it works.
As someone who has been involved in spam fighting stuff since 1999 or
so, hate to burst a
>... What get's spammers caught is that eventually they have to sell you
>something
That includes all of my legitimate customers... If you want I can get you some
legitimate subject lines :-).
A few points:
- There is a difference between 'real' companies that do stupid/illegal things
and 'cr
On 01/21/16 18:27, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
On 01/21/16 17:23, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Because it works on NOT matching instead of matching they don't get
the same advantages as matching systems. If they try to fake one of
those subjects it only helps th
Marc Perkel wrote:
>
> On 01/21/16 17:23, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
>> Marc Perkel wrote:
>>> Because it works on NOT matching instead of matching they don't get
>>> the same advantages as matching systems. If they try to fake one of
>>> those subjects it only helps them pass one of hundreds of test
On 01/21/16 17:23, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Because it works on NOT matching instead of matching they don't get
the same advantages as matching systems. If they try to fake one of
those subjects it only helps them pass one of hundreds of tests. So at
best their fake will make
Marc Perkel wrote:
> Because it works on NOT matching instead of matching they don't get
> the same advantages as matching systems. If they try to fake one of
> those subjects it only helps them pass one of hundreds of tests. So at
> best their fake will make an opportunity to detect ham become neu
Sounds like just another derivative of a scoring system like SA, ASSP, etc.
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 4:27 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
> Because it works on NOT matching instead of matching they don't get the same
> advantages as matching systems. If they try to fake one of those subjects it
> only h
Because it works on NOT matching instead of matching they don't get the
same advantages as matching systems. If they try to fake one of those
subjects it only helps them pass one of hundreds of tests. So at best
their fake will make an opportunity to detect ham become neutral on the
phrase.
P
On 01/21/16 13:12, Anne Mitchell wrote:
Here is a list of 5505874 words and phrases used in the subject line of HAM and
never seen in the subject line of SPAM
http://www.junkemailfilter.com/data/subject-ham.txt
Well, until the spammers spider the site, get the list, and incorporate the
subje
Wouldn't spammers simply download this list and start using them in spam?
Even absent the list, knowing the methodology is enough to start
countering it.
- mark
On 2016-01-21 3:45 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Just to follow up on this. I'm in the process of improving the filter.
> But I have filed
> Here is a list of 5505874 words and phrases used in the subject line of HAM
> and never seen in the subject line of SPAM
>
> http://www.junkemailfilter.com/data/subject-ham.txt
Well, until the spammers spider the site, get the list, and incorporate the
subject lines.
What's to stop spammers
Thanks for this. It'll be useful to show the next person who tries to convince
me software patents are a good idea.
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse any unusual brevity or typos while I'm on
the go.
> On 22 Jan 2016, at 7:48 AM, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
> Just to follow up on this. I'm in the
Just to follow up on this. I'm in the process of improving the filter.
But I have filed my provisional patent so i'm going to give you an
overview of how it works.
Most spam filters work by matching things. Matching ham and spam.
Matching rules. The important point here in this is this new sys
25 matches
Mail list logo