Re: [Declude.JunkMail] GIBBERISH test adjustment
I'll add these to the list that I maintain as well for both the ANTIGIBBERISHSUB and ANTIGIBBERISH filters. You shouldn't need to add these to the base filters though since the two letter string will trip it without any assistance. I took note of your parts suggestion as well, but haven't yet determined how I would like to integrate this. I've got about a month of hits archived though for easy searching, and I have seen some FP's on this, but only from one place if I recall correctly. I wonder how consistent the exception would be. I'm going to put up a new file that contains these changes as well as exceptions for qos, qmail and a few updates for mail clients that might send out such a string that isn't marked as base64. Thanks, Matt John Tolmachoff (Lists) wrote: I have added the following line to both GIBBERISH and ANTIGIBBERISH tests: BODY0 CONTAINSQS-9000 BODY0 CONTAINSQS9000 BODY0 CONTAINSQS 9000 This is in response to messages that mention certifications, specifically the Q_S_ (-)9000 automotive certification. John Tolmachoff MCSE CSSA Engineer/Consultant eServices For You www.eservicesforyou.com --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] GIBBERISH test adjustment
Matt can I take a look at an updated version of you files. Fred - Original Message - From: Matthew Bramble [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 11:48 AM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] GIBBERISH test adjustment I'll add these to the list that I maintain as well for both the ANTIGIBBERISHSUB and ANTIGIBBERISH filters. You shouldn't need to add these to the base filters though since the two letter string will trip it without any assistance. I took note of your parts suggestion as well, but haven't yet determined how I would like to integrate this. I've got about a month of hits archived though for easy searching, and I have seen some FP's on this, but only from one place if I recall correctly. I wonder how consistent the exception would be. I'm going to put up a new file that contains these changes as well as exceptions for qos, qmail and a few updates for mail clients that might send out such a string that isn't marked as base64. Thanks, Matt John Tolmachoff (Lists) wrote: I have added the following line to both GIBBERISH and ANTIGIBBERISH tests: BODY 0 CONTAINS QS-9000 BODY 0 CONTAINS QS9000 BODY 0 CONTAINS QS 9000 This is in response to messages that mention certifications, specifically the Q_S_ (-)9000 automotive certification. John Tolmachoff MCSE CSSA Engineer/Consultant eServices For You www.eservicesforyou.com --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] GIBBERISH test adjustment
I'll add these to the list that I maintain as well for both the ANTIGIBBERISHSUB and ANTIGIBBERISH filters. You shouldn't need to add these to the base filters though since the two letter string will trip it without any assistance. I did not want to loose the QS, so I added the legit use of it. I took note of your parts suggestion as well, but haven't yet determined how I would like to integrate this. I've got about a month of hits archived though for easy searching, and I have seen some FP's on this, but only from one place if I recall correctly. I wonder how consistent the exception would be. I have done this by putting the following line in both files: BODY0 CONTAINSparts This way, any message with parts in it will fail both but have zero weight, and that way not be penalized for have those letters in the part numbers. Part numbers can take on many different forms, from all letters to all numbers to a varied mix. I have a client that deals in electronic parts, and both above items are actually seen in messages they receive. I'm going to put up a new file that contains these changes as well as exceptions for qos, qmail and a few updates for mail clients that might send out such a string that isn't marked as base64. Thanks for maintaining this. Looking forward to it. John Tolmachoff MCSE CSSA Engineer/Consultant eServices For You www.eservicesforyou.com --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] GIBBERISH test adjustment
John Tolmachoff (Lists) wrote: I'll add these to the list that I maintain as well for both the ANTIGIBBERISHSUB and ANTIGIBBERISH filters. You shouldn't need to add these to the base filters though since the two letter string will trip it without any assistance. I did not want to loose the QS, so I added the legit use of it. I just wanted to point out that you would not in fact lose the QS hit the way I suggested because it will hit QS in the main file and then get credit back for QS-9000 in the anti file. Putting QS-9000 in the main file is redundant with the two letter strings that appear there. Listing in both the main and anti files is only necessary for things that won't always trip the test but need counterbalancing. So with strings such as QOS and QS-9000, you only need to add those to the anti file, while something like "parts" won't always trip the main filter and it therefore needs to be added in both places. Regarding the parts exclusion, what I need to do is figure out the universe of ways that such lists are generally referred to. It might be that additional exclusions would also be recommended. I've got over 200 MB worth of hits (scoring and non-scoring), to test for variations. FYI, I've been toying with the idea of providing exclusions for any body URL that contains a script extension with arguments since it appears that a moderate number of legit automated mailers don't stick to more common acronyms and strings based on decimals or hexadecimals. I don't want to defeat the test though for every URL though because a good number of hits come by way of spammers inserting gibberish into their links, and that is much needed IMO. Again, this is something that I need to test once I separate the FP's from non-scoring hits and real positives in my capture. Matt
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] GIBBERISH test adjustment
Fred, If you don't mind a short delay, I just finished the design on my new site in which I am planning on placing this stuff. Given a little bit of additional time to populate the pages in question and clean up the files, I'll have this ready to download shortly. If you have the most recent version that I shared with the group back on August 17th, it contains exceptions for the majority of FP's, with the remaining things only being stragglers. Unfortunately this type of filter is always going to have FP's, so there is a reasonable limit to how much work goes into counterbalances. If anyone has any more counterbalances to suggest, now would be a wonderful time so that I can get them into the file. Thanks, Matt Frederick Samarelli wrote: Matt can I take a look at an updated version of you files. Fred - Original Message - From: "Matthew Bramble" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 11:48 AM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] GIBBERISH test adjustment I'll add these to the list that I maintain as well for both the ANTIGIBBERISHSUB and ANTIGIBBERISH filters. You shouldn't need to add these to the base filters though since the two letter string will trip it without any assistance. I took note of your "parts" suggestion as well, but haven't yet determined how I would like to integrate this. I've got about a month of hits archived though for easy searching, and I have seen some FP's on this, but only from one place if I recall correctly. I wonder how consistent the exception would be. I'm going to put up a new file that contains these changes as well as exceptions for "qos", "qmail" and a few updates for mail clients that might send out such a string that isn't marked as base64. Thanks, Matt John Tolmachoff (Lists) wrote: I have added the following line to both GIBBERISH and ANTIGIBBERISH tests: BODY 0 CONTAINS QS-9000 BODY 0 CONTAINS QS9000 BODY 0 CONTAINS QS 9000 This is in response to messages that mention certifications, specifically the Q_S_ (-)9000 automotive certification. John Tolmachoff MCSE CSSA Engineer/Consultant eServices For You www.eservicesforyou.com --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. -- === Matthew S. Bramble President and Technical Coordinator iGaia Incorporated, Operator of NYcars.com --- Office Phone: (518) 862-9042 Cellular: (518) 229-3375 Fax: (518) 862-9044 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ===
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] GIBBERISH test adjustment
Title: Message Hello Matthew, Probably should have sent this off-list but I just want you to know how much we appreciate the work you share with the group. Your filters have helped reduce our spam significantly. I know how often we seem to complain when things don't go right but how infrequently we share praise when someone is willing to contribute their knowledge and expertise. Thanks from all of us!!! JR -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew BrambleSent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 1:16 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] GIBBERISH test adjustment Fred,If you don't mind a short delay, I just finished the design on my new site in which I am planning on placing this stuff. Given a little bit of additional time to populate the pages in question and clean up the files, I'll have this ready to download shortly. If you have the most recent version that I shared with the group back on August 17th, it contains exceptions for the majority of FP's, with the remaining things only being stragglers. Unfortunately this type of filter is always going to have FP's, so there is a reasonable limit to how much work goes into counterbalances.If anyone has any more counterbalances to suggest, now would be a wonderful time so that I can get them into the file.Thanks,MattFrederick Samarelli wrote: Matt can I take a look at an updated version of you files. Fred - Original Message - From: "Matthew Bramble" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 11:48 AM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] GIBBERISH test adjustment I'll add these to the list that I maintain as well for both the ANTIGIBBERISHSUB and ANTIGIBBERISH filters. You shouldn't need to add these to the base filters though since the two letter string will trip it without any assistance. I took note of your "parts" suggestion as well, but haven't yet determined how I would like to integrate this. I've got about a month of hits archived though for easy searching, and I have seen some FP's on this, but only from one place if I recall correctly. I wonder how consistent the exception would be. I'm going to put up a new file that contains these changes as well as exceptions for "qos", "qmail" and a few updates for mail clients that might send out such a string that isn't marked as base64. Thanks, Matt John Tolmachoff (Lists) wrote: I have added the following line to both GIBBERISH and ANTIGIBBERISH tests: BODY 0 CONTAINS QS-9000 BODY 0 CONTAINS QS9000 BODY 0 CONTAINS QS 9000 This is in response to messages that mention certifications, specifically the Q_S_ (-)9000 automotive certification. John Tolmachoff MCSE CSSA Engineer/Consultant eServices For You www.eservicesforyou.com --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. -- === Matthew S. Bramble President and Technical Coordinator iGaia Incorporated, Operator of NYcars.com --- Office Phone: (518) 862-9042 Cellular: (518) 229-3375 Fax: (518) 862-9044 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ===
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] GIBBERISH test adjustment
I just wanted to point out that you would not in fact lose the QS hit the way I suggested because it will hit QS in the main file and then get credit back for QS-9000 in the anti file. Putting QS-9000 in the main file is redundant with the two letter strings that appear there. Ah, gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. Regarding the parts exclusion, what I need to do is figure out the universe of ways that such lists are generally referred to. It might be that additional exclusions would also be recommended. I've got over 200 MB worth of hits (scoring and non-scoring), to test for variations. That's just it, there is no universal way. Sometimes they are in a list, something on a single line and so forth. The body in all the cases I have seen had the word part in it, although come to think of it you might want to include the word item as well. John Tolmachoff MCSE CSSA Engineer/Consultant eServices For You www.eservicesforyou.com --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail. The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] GIBBERISH test adjustment
What can I say except thanks in return :) It's somewhat a community project though, so let's not forget those that provide the feedback for which I am only a conduit. We all benefit from that. Matt JR Tatum wrote: Message Hello Matthew, Probably should have sent this off-list but I just want you to know how much we appreciate the work you share with the group. Your filters have helped reduce our spam significantly. I know how often we seem to complain when things don't go right but how infrequently we share praise when someone is willing to contribute their knowledge and expertise. Thanks from all of us!!! JR -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matthew Bramble Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 1:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] GIBBERISH test adjustment Fred, If you don't mind a short delay, I just finished the design on my new site in which I am planning on placing this stuff. Given a little bit of additional time to populate the pages in question and clean up the files, I'll have this ready to download shortly. If you have the most recent version that I shared with the group back on August 17th, it contains exceptions for the majority of FP's, with the remaining things only being stragglers. Unfortunately this type of filter is always going to have FP's, so there is a reasonable limit to how much work goes into counterbalances. If anyone has any more counterbalances to suggest, now would be a wonderful time so that I can get them into the file. Thanks, Matt Frederick Samarelli wrote: Matt can I take a look at an updated version of you files. Fred - Original Message - From: "Matthew Bramble" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 11:48 AM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] GIBBERISH test adjustment I'll add these to the list that I maintain as well for both the ANTIGIBBERISHSUB and ANTIGIBBERISH filters. You shouldn't need to add these to the base filters though since the two letter string will trip it without any assistance. I took note of your "parts" suggestion as well, but haven't yet determined how I would like to integrate this. I've got about a month of hits archived though for easy searching, and I have seen some FP's on this, but only from one place if I recall correctly. I wonder how consistent the exception would be. I'm going to put up a new file that contains these changes as well as exceptions for "qos", "qmail" and a few updates for mail clients that might send out such a string that isn't marked as base64. Thanks, Matt John Tolmachoff (Lists) wrote: I have added the following line to both GIBBERISH and ANTIGIBBERISH tests: BODY 0 CONTAINS QS-9000 BODY 0 CONTAINS QS9000 BODY 0 CONTAINS QS 9000 This is in response to messages that mention certifications, specifically the Q_S_ (-)9000 automotive certification. John Tolmachoff MCSE CSSA Engineer/Consultant eServices For You www.eservicesforyou.com
