On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 10:18:44AM -0500, Bill wrote:
> Ok, if the image spams all have a different hash wouldn't that make the
> Hash function built into Fuzzy OCR useless as well? I'm not sure I buy into
> that thinking. The hash option in my Fuzzy OCR setup runs pretty well.
I know nothing
Bill wrote:
> Ok, if the image spams all have a different hash wouldn't that make the
> Hash function built into Fuzzy OCR useless as well? I'm not sure I buy into
> that thinking. The hash option in my Fuzzy OCR setup runs pretty well.
No, the FuzzyOCR plugin's hash system isn't a checksum o
ecktenwald
To: Bill ; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: New RBL idea regarding image spam
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 10:00:10AM -0500, Bill wrote:
> Couldn't there be an RBL established ... that
> maintained the hash of known spam
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 10:00:10AM -0500, Bill wrote:
> Couldn't there be an RBL established ... that
> maintained the hash of known spam images and forego the wordlist detection?
most image spam contains small differences (some flipped pixels, etc)
so the hash function will return different r
This may not be a new idea but wouldn't a new RBL based on image spam be
worthy? I've been testing FuzzyOCR recently and although it seems to work it
seems sort of "brute force". From what I understand it converts the images
to a PPM or PNM format and then runs gocr over those images and attemp
