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: 103376,561ac97c34d8f8ef X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-22 02:41:39 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newshosting.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!news-feed01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net!nntp.frontiernet.net!tdsnet-transit!newspeer.tds.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: OT-spam detection, was Re: WM, and lindens rustled Date: 22 Jan 2004 04:41:35 -0600 Organization: LJK Software Message-ID: References: <100tknotk84nfe0@corp.supernews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1074768032 4919 192.135.80.34 (22 Jan 2004 10:40:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 10:40:32 +0000 (UTC) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4630 Date: 2004-01-22T04:41:35-06:00 List-Id: In article , Preben Randhol writes: > On 2004-01-21, Randy Brukardt 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.