Re: [mailop] New method of blocking spam

2016-01-24 Thread Yiorgos Adamopoulos
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

Re: [mailop] New method of blocking spam

2016-01-24 Thread Ted Cooper
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

Re: [mailop] New method of blocking spam

2016-01-24 Thread John Levine
>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

Re: [mailop] New method of blocking spam

2016-01-24 Thread Dave Warren
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

Re: [mailop] New method of blocking spam

2016-01-22 Thread John Levine
> 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

Re: [mailop] New method of blocking spam

2016-01-22 Thread David Hofstee
>... 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

Re: [mailop] New method of blocking spam

2016-01-22 Thread Simon Lyall
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

Re: [mailop] New method of blocking spam

2016-01-22 Thread Brielle Bruns
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

Re: [mailop] New method of blocking spam

2016-01-22 Thread Brielle Bruns
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?

Re: [mailop] New method of blocking spam

2016-01-22 Thread Carl Byington
-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?

Re: [mailop] New method of blocking spam

2016-01-22 Thread Neil Jenkins
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.

Re: [mailop] New method of blocking spam

2016-01-22 Thread John R Levine
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

Re: [mailop] New method of blocking spam

2016-01-21 Thread Anne Mitchell
> 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

Re: [mailop] New method of blocking spam

2016-01-21 Thread Mark Jeftovic
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

Re: [mailop] New method of blocking spam

2016-01-21 Thread Marc Perkel
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

Re: [mailop] New method of blocking spam

2016-01-21 Thread Marc Perkel
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.

Re: [mailop] New method of blocking spam

2016-01-21 Thread TR Shaw
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

Re: [mailop] New method of blocking spam

2016-01-21 Thread Michelle Sullivan
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

Re: [mailop] New method of blocking spam

2016-01-21 Thread Marc Perkel
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

Re: [mailop] New method of blocking spam

2016-01-21 Thread Michelle Sullivan
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

Re: [mailop] New method of blocking spam

2016-01-21 Thread Marc Perkel
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