From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Subject: Re: OT-spam detection, was Re: WM, and lindens rustled
Date: 22 Jan 2004 04:41:35 -0600
Date: 2004-01-22T04:41:35-06:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <BstKGX8849Vw@eisner.encompasserve.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: slrnc0v0i8.r3.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@k-083152.nt.ntnu.no
In article <slrnc0v0i8.r3.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@k-083152.nt.ntnu.no>, Preben Randhol <randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@pvv.org> writes:
> On 2004-01-21, Randy Brukardt <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote:
>> Certainly mine does. (It uses a dictionary of known common e-mail words.
>> Most of those aren't in it.) But anything that only works on words (and not
>> on the relationships) will have trouble with such things, if the words are
>> valid. Which is why I don't think Bayesian filters work because of the words
>> (even though that how they are usually described), but rather because of the
>> HTML markup (which, often hides word lists like that).
>>
>
> My Bayesian filter filters out these SPAM messages.
For improvement of the Internet, it is better to reject such connections
at the SMTP level, or best of all engage in teergrubing/tarpitting. Such
are typically done based on DNSbls of the email administrator's choice.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-01-22 10:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <mailman.9.1074679047.281.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
2004-01-21 18:05 ` OT-spam detection, was Re: WM, and lindens rustled tmoran
2004-01-21 19:28 ` Randy Brukardt
2004-01-22 7:56 ` Preben Randhol
2004-01-22 10:41 ` Larry Kilgallen [this message]
2004-01-22 13:06 ` Preben Randhol
2004-01-22 15:47 ` Larry Kilgallen
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox