Re: Ways around Bayes filters?

[Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>]

-----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-----