>> I'm currently writing a column in PC Authority magazine >> (www.pcauthority.com.au <http://www.pcauthority.com.au/> ) on the >> new wave >> of spam that use randomised or semi-randomised words to confound >> Bayesian >> filters. > > I can take this, cos it's in my timezone,
Plus you speak the local language ;) > if no-one else wants to. Sounds good to me :) > I figure > the key point about the random word spam is that it's just trying to > overwhelm the bayesian filters. Personally, I'm finding them > _slightly_ > effective (2 or 3 a day slip through if they hit the right words) > but not > significantly more than that. Fundamentally, they still have to put > words in > that sell a product, and that screws them over. I think that people have shown that random words are pretty ineffective (e.g. John Graham-Cumming at 2004's MIT Spam Conference). Random paragraphs (those news clippings and the like) are a bit more effective. I think that image-based spam is clearly far superior to any sort of random-word technique, though (although some of the image-spam also has the random words - I'm not sure that really helps the spammer, though). =Tony.Meyer _______________________________________________ spambayes-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/spambayes-dev
