On 22 Apr 2004 at 12:07, Gilbert, Joseph wrote:
> From my understanding of sburl, they are fed by SpamCop. Thus, in order for
> this to become workable, both SpamCop and sburl would have to have
> mechanisms with the same results to unencode the URLs. Otherwise, there
> would be no match. Now,
Jordan Ritter wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 10:57:49PM -0800, John Andersen wrote:
# On Wednesday 21 April 2004 04:35, Tom Allison wrote:
#
# > > spamassassin wasn't catching had a very high percentage of links to
# > > domains that were under a month old, most under a week old.
# >
# > This would
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 11:19 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Razor-users] Poor detection ratio
>
>
> Gilbert, Joseph wrote:
>
> > There are a number of tactics of
Gilbert, Joseph wrote:
> There are a number of tactics of URL obfuscation that could easily
> permanently kill a filter that was totally reliant on scanning urls.
>
> Third off, there are a significant number of ways to obfuscate/encode
> URLs. Commonly, most spam still uses a straight hostname ba
> From: John Andersen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Wednesday 21 April 2004 04:35, Tom Allison wrote:
>
> > > spamassassin wasn't catching had a very high percentage
> of links to
> > > domains that were under a month old, most under a week old.
> >
> > This would work up until they moment that
ersen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 11:58 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Razor-users] Poor detection ratio
On Wednesday 21 April 2004 04:35, Tom Allison wrote:
> > spamassassin wasn't catching had a very high percentage of links to
> > domains that
On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 10:57:49PM -0800, John Andersen wrote:
# On Wednesday 21 April 2004 04:35, Tom Allison wrote:
#
# > > spamassassin wasn't catching had a very high percentage of links to
# > > domains that were under a month old, most under a week old.
# >
# > This would work up until they m
On Wednesday 21 April 2004 04:35, Tom Allison wrote:
> > spamassassin wasn't catching had a very high percentage of links to
> > domains that were under a month old, most under a week old.
>
> This would work up until they moment that they change their addresses to:
> http://24.203.43.129/freegoop
04 5:35 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: [Razor-users] Poor detection ratio
Gilbert, Joseph wrote:
> On this whole discussion, I read an article that pointed me to an
> interesting fact that has beared up extremely well under ,albiet limited,
my
> personal investi
Gilbert, Joseph wrote:
On this whole discussion, I read an article that pointed me to an
interesting fact that has beared up extremely well under ,albiet limited, my
personal investigations. Here is the article:
http://www.colinfahey.com/spam_topics/spam_the_phenomenon.htm
The author proposes a s
On Thursday 15 April 2004 14:14, Gilbert, Joseph wrote:
> The largest technical concern I have is the availability of whois servers.
> I have already decided to include a caching database in the design of this
> tool that will hold entries so that whois servers will not be attempted for
> every pie
me as well.
Joe Gilbert
-Original Message-
From: John Andersen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 7:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Razor-users] Poor detection ratio
On Wednesday 14 April 2004 15:31, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I believe that if the
On Wednesday 14 April 2004 19:12, Aurangzeb M. Agha wrote:
> Razor, I think, is one of the best examples of terrible documentation.
Well that amplifies my point with another item for consideration.
--
_
John Andersen
John --
While your point is well taken, the fact of the matter is that the
documentation for most of these tools SUCKS! The documentation is fine
when looking at an individual SPAM blocker like Spam Assassin, but when
you start talking about integrating it with Razor or SURBL, its hopeless.
The
On Wednesday 14 April 2004 15:31, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I believe that if the users of SpamAssassin would take the 2 minutes to
> configure razor-report you might be able to achieve >>80% detection ratio
> in a matter of days.
>
> However, since most people who use SpamAssassin don't take th
> Hi. I've installed Razor, and I'm trying to get a sense for
> how well it works.
>
> I've taken some sample spam from http://www.em.ca/~bruceg/spam/.
> I ran razor-check on 519 sample spams from April 7th, and only
> four ( < 1% ) were detected:
>
> --snip--
> bash-2.05b$ for f in 108136*; do ra
At 03:01 PM 4/12/2004, Neil Bradley wrote:
Every thing Razor has listed I've seen is spam.
Well, except for the latest CERT advisory. It appears to have been revoked
since then, but at the time it hit my mail server Razor tagged it.
Probably some long-dead account is on the list, and has since b
Neil Bradley wrote:
If you're running SpamAssassin, how many spam and ham messages did you
sa-learn? If you have a relatively small database, it can't get a good
idea of what is and isn't spam without it.
I am using SpamAssassin, but in this case I'm just running the
command line 'razor-check' to
> Hi. I've installed Razor, and I'm trying to get a sense for
> how well it works.
>
> I've taken some sample spam from http://www.em.ca/~bruceg/spam/.
> I ran razor-check on 519 sample spams from April 7th, and only
> four ( < 1% ) were detected:
I ran in to the same problem when I installed Raz
19 matches
Mail list logo
