On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Dan Melomedman wrote:
> From: Dan Melomedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:24:19 -0500
> Subject: Re: Some real anti-bayes stuffing
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
> version=2.60
>
> Pat Noordsij wrote:
> > I have one email that included 2 pages of text from Tom Sawyer.
> >
> > It didn't get caught.
>
> There are also sentence-writing AI programs conveniently available for
> spammers. Finally they found a way to foil Bayesian filters.
> Congratulations.
>
> Welp, time to find a new anti-spam mechanism. What is it this time?
>
Hmm. I don't think so... Our SA installation has worked extremely
well for the 6 months or so it has been in operation. The spammers try
new tricks, and bayes/new rules fix them. Considering we are detecting
over 99% of the spam (approx 2000 a day), in spite of spammer attempts to
'poison' bayes, change speelings, etc, I'd say SA is doing just great.
--
Jon Trulson mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ID: 1A9A2B09, FP: C23F328A721264E7 B6188192EC733962
PGP keys at http://radscan.com/~jon/PGPKeys.txt
#include <std/disclaimer.h>
"I am Nomad." -Nomad
