Jeff writes:
> On Apr 2, 2007, at 11:00 AM, Steven W. Orr wrote:
>
> > On Friday I attended the annual Spam Conference at MIT. While
> > there, I spoke with a person who was an employee of Sophos. They
> > are very proud of the proprietary spam filtering they do. We talked
> > about SA and
On Monday, Apr 2nd 2007 at 12:18 -0400, quoth Rob McEwen (PowerView Systems):
=>> It turns out that the basis for their analysis is to look at
=>> the size of
=>> the image as well as the number of colors. 99.99% of all spam
=>> images have
=>> less than 16 colors. Once they found an image wit
> It turns out that the basis for their analysis is to look at
> the size of
> the image as well as the number of colors. 99.99% of all spam
> images have
> less than 16 colors. Once they found an image with 22 colors.
> This sounds
> like a dirt cheap way to get a huge boost in spam
> recog
> -Original Message-
> From: Steven W. Orr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 11:01 AM
> To: spamassassin-users
> Subject: Fundamental question about spam image processing.
>
>
> On Friday I attended the annual Spam Conference at MIT. While
> there, I
> spoke wit
On Apr 2, 2007, at 11:00 AM, Steven W. Orr wrote:
On Friday I attended the annual Spam Conference at MIT. While
there, I spoke with a person who was an employee of Sophos. They
are very proud of the proprietary spam filtering they do. We talked
about SA and FuzzyOCR and I learned that they
