On Thursday 15 April 2004 16:08, Vipul Ved Prakash wrote: > I am aware that Razor Agents are not very effective at this point. There > are a couple of thing I want to point out. First, Razor2/SpamNet, as a > technology, is quite possibly the best spam filtration system that exists > today by the virtue of its realtime feedback and high granularity of > categorization.
But how well can this granularity hold up when razor is being fed by hundreds of automated (SpamAssassin) agents? It can be no better than the sum of its parts. Conversly, what happens when all thes automated feeders stop? Nobody has time to inspect spam with "eyes only", which was your original intent (as posted here on this list in the very beginning). One possible improvement might be to work with the project at http://surbl.org/ which holds promise by cutting off spammers from their source of revenue, by useing the very URLs they foist as weapons against them. And that technilogy is similar in nature to what Razor tries to do, and requires a DNS like approach that could just as well be handled by an adaptation of a razor engine. 500 different message bodies take a while to get into razor. But when they all carying links that point to a specific IP or subnet the meer appearance of said link is a very good indication of spam. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click _______________________________________________ Razor-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/razor-users
