This just sailed through my filter:
From: "archieboy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: urgent and confidential business proposal
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:04:54 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encod
The Nigerian scam rules need a serious revisiting. These spams are mutating
to avoid the high-scoring rules, and the "general" rules like
NIGERIAN_TRANSACTION1 hit a modest amount of nonspam so they don't wind up
scoring high enough. They are also mutating heavily enough to avoid razor
in many
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 01:52:31PM -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> The Nigerian scam rules need a serious revisiting. These spams are mutating
> to avoid the high-scoring rules, and the "general" rules like
> NIGERIAN_TRANSACTION1 hit a modest amount of nonspam so they don't wind up
> scoring high
> "TVD" == Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TVD> Overall, I don't get very many of these -- do other people see more?
TVD> I get maybe 1 or 2 a month if that (out of ~1700 spams/month).
I get tons. At least 5 to 10 a week. But then, I've actually
received two of these via postal
On Fri, 2002-10-18 at 13:17, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 01:52:31PM -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> > The Nigerian scam rules need a serious revisiting. These spams are mutating
> > to avoid the high-scoring rules, and the "general" rules like
> > NIGERIAN_TRANSACTION1 hit a mod
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 01:52:31PM -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> > The Nigerian scam rules need a serious revisiting. These spams are mutating
> > to avoid the high-scoring rules, and the "general" rules like
> > NIGERIAN_TRANSACTION1 hit a modest amo
