On Thu, 02 Dec 2004, Matt Kettler stated:
> Actually, In my experience, DCC contains very little solicited
> bulk. It also contains much less solicited bulk mail than razor
> does. This is of course completely contrary to Razor's goal of not
> containing solicited email, and DCC's claim of not cari
I forget to be paranoid and suspicious some times. :(
<>
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Santerre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 9:12 AM
> To: Smart,Dan; users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Image
>-Original Message-
>From: Smart,Dan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 9:59 AM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: RE: Image Composition Analysis
>
>
>Agree on DCC, it only tells if bulk and doesn't discriminate
>on Spam
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 9:18 AM
> To: Matt Kettler
> Cc: Smart,Dan; users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Image Composition Analysis
>
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 07:25:45PM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
> > Yes, but DCC is still more reliable and faster. (I
Matt Kettler wrote:
> Actually, In my experience, DCC contains very little solicited bulk. It
> also contains much less solicited bulk mail than razor does. This is of
> course completely contrary to Razor's goal of not containing solicited
> email, and DCC's claim of not caring.
Agreed. That
At 11:29 AM 12/2/2004, Bob Proulx wrote:
> DCC seems to have a large number of _solicited_ bulk email in its
> database, and my users get very upset when they sign up for junk email
> and it gets marked anywhere near spam.
Of course DCC will contain solicited bulk email in the database! You
*compl
Michael Barnes wrote:
> Matt Kettler wrote:
> > Yes, but DCC is still more reliable and faster. (I use both)
>
> I had to score DCC with 0.1 because it has way too many false positives.
> [...]
> DCC seems to have a large number of _solicited_ bulk email in its
> database, and my users get very up
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 07:25:45PM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Yes, but DCC is still more reliable and faster. (I use both)
I had to score DCC with 0.1 because it has way too many false positives.
My local.cf section dealing with this:
# too many false posives with this guy, meta corrected belo
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 04:27:14PM -0600, Smart,Dan wrote:
> Catching image only E-mail with pornographic images is really
> difficult. My users are offended when they get one, and wonder how
> I could not catch it. Explaining that the document was text, filled
> with bayes poison, and the one po
On Wednesday, December 1, 2004, 3:25:42 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 14:35, Chris Santerre wrote:
>> We are seeing an increase in throw away domains being used to reroute
>> to other domains that will NEVER show up directly in a spam. All in
>> attempts to get passed SURBL.
> I'm
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 14:35, Chris Santerre wrote:
> We are seeing an increase in throw away domains being used to reroute
> to other domains that will NEVER show up directly in a spam. All in
> attempts to get passed SURBL.
I'm going to bring up this idea again, in a slightly different context
th
don't
realise we know ;)
--Chris
>-Original Message-
>From: Smart,Dan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 4:57 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: Image Composition Analysis
>
>
>Attached is the spam that got through. I changed
X-Keywords:
> X-UID: 1219
>
> ======
> <>
>
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: John Andersen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 2:45 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
SARE_HTML_FSIZE_1ALL,WS_URI_RBL autolearn=no
version=2.64
X-Spam-Level: *
Status: RO
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 1219
==
<>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Andersen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01,
>-Original Message-
>From: Martin Hepworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 4:39 AM
>To: Smart,Dan
>Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Image Composition Analysis
>
>
>Dan
>
>I find the surbl.org URIRBL list prov
Dan
I find the surbl.org URIRBL list provides very good protection against
this kind of message, along with othe rules in www.rulesemporium.com I
don't recall seeing one slip through for ages..
--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300
Smart,Dan wrote
On Tuesday 30 November 2004 01:27 pm, Smart,Dan wrote:
> Catching image only E-mail with pornographic images is really difficult.
> My users are offended when they get one, and wonder how I could not catch
> it. Explaining that the document was text, filled with bayes poison, and
> the one porn
I wonder what kind of a load it is on the filtering machine.
{^_-}
- Original Message -
From: "Smart,Dan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Messagelabs made a big deal of their option of using First 4 Internet's
> Image Composition Analysis tool to detect pornographic images. Is anyone
in
> the ope
At 07:15 PM 11/30/2004, Smart,Dan wrote:
So Razor differs from DCC in that respect.
Razor and DCC differ quite a bit when you get into the details.
Particularly now that razor has the e8 algorithm, which is more like SURBL
than it is like DCC.
I gave up on Razor long ago due to delays due to sl
r 30, 2004 5:12 PM
> To: Smart,Dan; users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Image Composition Analysis
>
> At 05:27 PM 11/30/2004, Smart,Dan wrote:
> >Messagelabs made a big deal of their option of using First
> 4 Internet's
> >Image Composition A
At 05:27 PM 11/30/2004, Smart,Dan wrote:
Messagelabs made a big deal of their option of using First 4 Internet's
Image Composition Analysis tool to detect pornographic images. Is anyone
in the open source world working on something similar.
Not that I'm aware of. Nor am I particularly impressed
t: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 4:53 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Image Composition Analysis
>
> Smart,Dan said:
> > Messagelabs made a big deal of their option of using First 4
> > Internet's Image Composition Analysis tool to detect pornogr
Smart,Dan said:
> Messagelabs made a big deal of their option of using First 4 Internet's
> Image Composition Analysis tool to detect pornographic images. Is anyone
> in
> the open source world working on something similar.
>
> Catching image only E-mail with pornographic images is really difficul
23 matches
Mail list logo
