On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 04:28, Diego Zamboni wrote: > - Long sequences of random dictionary words in their messages, which > perhaps make it look more "normal" to filters.
I use bogofilter (a bayesian filter [only]). When the heap-of-random-dictionary-words technique cropped up, I was really worried - it seemed a good workaround. For a while I started getting 15-20% false negatives. I thought I'd have to ditch and go to a full blown SpamAssassin setup, but I faithfully trained for a week or two, and suddenly, my false negatives are right back down to 1-2 per 1000. My guess [this is entirely unscientific] is that it backfired on them. The dictionary is relatively big, but the set of words commonly used is *really* small in comparison. Because they use words that I and my correspondents *never* use, the score on uncommon words (take "lanthanide" and "dispensary". Who are they kidding?) goes up, and they become clear markers for spam. [I wonder how many people are spam blocking this thread? :)] AfC -- Andrew Frederick Cowie Operational Dynamics Consulting Pty Ltd Australia: +61 2 9977 6866 North America: +1 646 472 5054 http://www.operationaldynamics.com/ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
