Re: GC, existed? the foreigner

[Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>]

"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