Bear in mind that the spammer who is developing this PDF spam is only one person, and he/she probably has at least one non-spammy-looking email address at his disposal.
What's to spot him/her from asking Dallas for a copy of the ruleset and plugin, same as any other SpamAssassin user, waiting a few days to cover his/her tracks, then fixing the spam to avoid it again? And if you think this isn't already happening, I have a bridge for sale ;) --j. Thomas Raef writes: > I for one agree with the protected model. > > I've read post after post in this group and others where people complain > that some new method is no longer effective due to the "other guys" > knowing our every step. > > If there were an application process, which would be too burdensome on > the maintainers, I'd support that as well - and offer my help. > > No I'm not a spammer and I've never played one on TV either... > > That's just my two cents worth of opinion, I could be wrong. > > Thank you to the people who write these plugins. You people rock! > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Raymond Dijkxhoorn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 4:10 PM > To: Jason Haar > Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Re: So what about rulesemporium.com and these anti-PDF rules? > > Hi! > > >> All in all, you're better off just making things public. > > > model in the antivirus/antispam arena... > > > > ...and it may be true - but no-one on this list believes it ;-) > > Its a matter of fact that published rules (see sare rulesets) become > less > effective immediate after publishing. That due to spammers reading along > > ect ect. > > I can understand Dallas point and dont agree that making this open will > give the same results.... It should, but it just doesnt. > > We have rules very ok hitting, and i know once we put this in a SARE set > > the effeciveness will drop and we have to come up with new rules. Not > really something people look forward to. Its just a handfull people > contributing as you know. > > Bye, > Raymond.
