From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,626842fa695f2fdf X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-16 13:21:49 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GC, existed? the foreigner Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 15:20:47 -0600 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <100glfb4e45iof0@corp.supernews.com> References: X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4467 Date: 2004-01-16T15:20:47-06:00 List-Id: "Christopher Browne" wrote in message news:bu7i55$ema5s$1@ID-125932.news.uni-berlin.de... > If none of your _real_ email contains words like "egret," "beseech," > or "shibboleth," then it certainly won't look like "ham." The initial description of Baysian filters included a rule that anything unrecognized was considered 10% chance of being spam. In that case, sticking any garbage into a message will help get it passed. I doubt that current filters work that way, but I don't know for sure. In any case, no single type of spam filter is going to trap all of the junk. You need multiple types of filters to get the junk-mistakenly-allowed-through rate low enough (1 per day is my target, or 0.1%). This is true of security in general as well. No single kind of defense is sufficient; you need many kinds (firewalls, anti-virus, anti-spam, etc.) Randy.