-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Jeff Heinen writes: > >With the moving of the list and a few sick days, I'm a little behind. So I'm >not sure if this has been brought up or not. My boss sent me this BBC >article this morning and suggested I send it along. > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3458457.stm > >To (over) summarize, the article states something that we here already know, >or should already know. That, given time and training, there will be certain >words that the filter learns as hammy, no matter what the situation. Names >of Businesses, street addresses, and staff members seem to be a likely >target as they are used daily in ham messages and learned as such. I'm sure >for many of us here, we can find things like 'spamassassin', 'bayes' and >'procmail' scoring low somewhere in our own bayes databases. > >To some extent, we are already seeing this. At least here, there as been >reports of the random gibberish words being replaced with 'technical' terms >or excepts from novels. So I've been asked if there are any suggestions to >combat, or at least keep up with this current spam mutation. Or are we >reaching a point where the effectiveness of the current systems fall behind >and we are forced to the next step, whatever that may be. Read the archives -- we covered this yesterday ;) Also, watch the presentation in question. It says exactly the opposite. - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFAIr7WQTcbUG5Y7woRAreBAJ9y1qvqn3fn+Dt8cWSsRbkG3nygxQCgo7SN BimIgGCq8/xYrjTPV8hSok0= =FpUk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
