* Re: GC, existed? the foreigner [not found] <mailman.27.1073938595.279.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org> @ 2004-01-15 20:50 ` Adam Beneschan 2004-01-16 1:59 ` Jeffrey Carter 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Adam Beneschan @ 2004-01-15 20:50 UTC (permalink / raw) "Katy" <bxdwsjcuzzs@web.de> wrote in message news:<mailman.27.1073938595.279.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>... > append centrifugal carmela carob committeewomen shibboleth silverware respecter lousy > sacrilegious egan donaldson dogging egret > attache dangerous pontiac armload electric apotheosis incapacitate beseech donna impress If this is a list of proposed reserved words to add to the Ada language, I vote "no". (Except maybe for "shibboleth" . . .) -- Adam ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: GC, existed? the foreigner 2004-01-15 20:50 ` GC, existed? the foreigner Adam Beneschan @ 2004-01-16 1:59 ` Jeffrey Carter 2004-01-16 2:26 ` Christopher Browne 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey Carter @ 2004-01-16 1:59 UTC (permalink / raw) Adam Beneschan wrote: > "Katy" <bxdwsjcuzzs@web.de> wrote in message > news:<mailman.27.1073938595.279.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>... > >> append centrifugal carmela carob committeewomen shibboleth >> silverware respecter lousy sacrilegious egan donaldson dogging >> egret attache dangerous pontiac armload electric apotheosis >> incapacitate beseech donna impress > > If this is a list of proposed reserved words to add to the Ada > language, I vote "no". (Except maybe for "shibboleth" . . .) I agree. We need "shibboleth" to be a reserved word in Ada 0X. Having decided what the reserved word will be, all we need to do now is figure out what it's for. This kind of list is actually an attempt to fool Bayesian spam filters into passing the message as not spam. While this is instantly identifiable as a spam pattern to humans, it may be effective against statistical filters. -- Jeff Carter "I wave my private parts at your aunties." Monty Python & the Holy Grail 13 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: GC, existed? the foreigner 2004-01-16 1:59 ` Jeffrey Carter @ 2004-01-16 2:26 ` Christopher Browne 2004-01-16 21:20 ` Randy Brukardt 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Christopher Browne @ 2004-01-16 2:26 UTC (permalink / raw) If none of your _real_ email contains words like "egret," "beseech," or "shibboleth," then it certainly won't look like "ham." -- "cbbrowne","@","cbbrowne.com" http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/multiplexor.html "When your hammer is C++, everything begins to look like a thumb." -- Steve Hoflich on comp.lang.c++ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: GC, existed? the foreigner 2004-01-16 2:26 ` Christopher Browne @ 2004-01-16 21:20 ` Randy Brukardt 2004-01-16 22:29 ` Robert A Duff 2004-01-17 14:52 ` Christopher Browne 0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Randy Brukardt @ 2004-01-16 21:20 UTC (permalink / raw) "Christopher Browne" <cbbrowne@acm.org> wrote in message news:bu7i55$ema5s$1@ID-125932.news.uni-berlin.de... > If none of your _real_ email contains words like "egret," "beseech," > or "shibboleth," then it certainly won't look like "ham." The initial description of Baysian filters included a rule that anything unrecognized was considered 10% chance of being spam. In that case, sticking any garbage into a message will help get it passed. I doubt that current filters work that way, but I don't know for sure. In any case, no single type of spam filter is going to trap all of the junk. You need multiple types of filters to get the junk-mistakenly-allowed-through rate low enough (1 per day is my target, or 0.1%). This is true of security in general as well. No single kind of defense is sufficient; you need many kinds (firewalls, anti-virus, anti-spam, etc.) Randy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: GC, existed? the foreigner 2004-01-16 21:20 ` Randy Brukardt @ 2004-01-16 22:29 ` Robert A Duff 2004-01-17 1:23 ` Jeffrey Carter 2004-01-17 14:52 ` Christopher Browne 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Robert A Duff @ 2004-01-16 22:29 UTC (permalink / raw) "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes: > "Christopher Browne" <cbbrowne@acm.org> wrote in message > news:bu7i55$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. What I find confusing is that many of these messages contain nothing but gibberish. I thought the purpose of SPAM was to send advertising, and I've seen some containing ads plus gibberish, which I understand. But why would folks want to send pure gibberish. (Both kinds are equally annoying!) > 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.) Sigh. - Bob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: GC, existed? the foreigner 2004-01-16 22:29 ` Robert A Duff @ 2004-01-17 1:23 ` Jeffrey Carter 2004-01-17 5:20 ` Randy Brukardt 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey Carter @ 2004-01-17 1:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert A Duff wrote: > What I find confusing is that many of these messages contain nothing but > gibberish. I thought the purpose of SPAM was to send advertising, and > I've seen some containing ads plus gibberish, which I understand. But > why would folks want to send pure gibberish. (Both kinds are equally > annoying!) Probably the payload is an image, and you've got an e-mail reader that doesn't display images, or you've told it not to display images (as I've done with Mozilla). The gibberish is in the text part of the message, which you see; the ad is in the image, which you don't. -- Jeff Carter "Brave Sir Robin ran away." Monty Python and the Holy Grail 59 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: GC, existed? the foreigner 2004-01-17 1:23 ` Jeffrey Carter @ 2004-01-17 5:20 ` Randy Brukardt 2004-01-17 17:26 ` Georg Bauhaus 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Randy Brukardt @ 2004-01-17 5:20 UTC (permalink / raw) "Jeffrey Carter" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message news:q80Ob.12381$1e.7181@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... > Robert A Duff wrote: > > > What I find confusing is that many of these messages contain nothing but > > gibberish. I thought the purpose of SPAM was to send advertising, and > > I've seen some containing ads plus gibberish, which I understand. But > > why would folks want to send pure gibberish. (Both kinds are equally > > annoying!) > > Probably the payload is an image, and you've got an e-mail reader that > doesn't display images, or you've told it not to display images (as I've > done with Mozilla). The gibberish is in the text part of the message, > which you see; the ad is in the image, which you don't. That, or the spammer just plain screwed up. I've seen messages with obvious macros where the domains were supposed to be "%Custom.com" and "$your-domain-here$.com". I've lots of messages with domains with doubled dots or a missing letter "ww.spamhaven..com". And I've gotten plenty of spam with no contact information whatsoever. (I've been getting a half-dozen messages a day from one sender, all the same, no means of contact at all. I doubt they'll sell many phony drugs that way...) Randy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: GC, existed? the foreigner 2004-01-17 5:20 ` Randy Brukardt @ 2004-01-17 17:26 ` Georg Bauhaus 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2004-01-17 17:26 UTC (permalink / raw) Randy Brukardt <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote: : I doubt they'll sell many phony drugs that way...) Some may just try addresses... -- Georg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: GC, existed? the foreigner 2004-01-16 21:20 ` Randy Brukardt 2004-01-16 22:29 ` Robert A Duff @ 2004-01-17 14:52 ` Christopher Browne 2004-01-17 22:11 ` tmoran 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Christopher Browne @ 2004-01-17 14:52 UTC (permalink / raw) In the last exciting episode, "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote: > "Christopher Browne" <cbbrowne@acm.org> wrote in message > news:bu7i55$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. Which paper provided evidence of the efficacity of that? It seems hard to find an "initial description"; the major papers seemed to emerge in about 1998, and even at that point, they were primarily writing about document _classification_, not "spam detection." I contributed to the work on Ifile back in 1996/1997 (before 1998!), and have been using Naive Bayesian filtering ever since; there is NO such rule in the code I use, and I have never seen such a rule in the scientific literature. Actually, it doesn't even make sense to suggest such a rule. Naive Bayesian filters don't use random number generators to decide what to do with mail; that "rule" can be of _no_ help in what is an entirely deterministic classification process. -- If this was helpful, <http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne> rate me http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/ifilter.html "La Cicciolina [...] Electing her was an interesting contrast to the situation in the UK: In Italy they elect a representative from the sex industry. In the UK, they elect their clients." -- Peter Gutmann ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: GC, existed? the foreigner 2004-01-17 14:52 ` Christopher Browne @ 2004-01-17 22:11 ` tmoran 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: tmoran @ 2004-01-17 22:11 UTC (permalink / raw) > > The initial description of Baysian filters included a rule that > > anything unrecognized was considered 10% chance of being spam. In > ... > and have been using Naive Bayesian filtering ever since; there is NO > such rule in the code I use, and I have never seen such a rule in the > scientific literature. Bayes Theorem has to do with modifying probability estimates based on data. But there must be some initial (a priori) estimate to start with. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-01-17 22:11 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- [not found] <mailman.27.1073938595.279.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org> 2004-01-15 20:50 ` GC, existed? the foreigner Adam Beneschan 2004-01-16 1:59 ` Jeffrey Carter 2004-01-16 2:26 ` Christopher Browne 2004-01-16 21:20 ` Randy Brukardt 2004-01-16 22:29 ` Robert A Duff 2004-01-17 1:23 ` Jeffrey Carter 2004-01-17 5:20 ` Randy Brukardt 2004-01-17 17:26 ` Georg Bauhaus 2004-01-17 14:52 ` Christopher Browne 2004-01-17 22:11 ` tmoran
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox