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 14:29:17 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!crtntx1-snh1.gtei.net!cambridge1-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!bos-service1.ext.raytheon.com!cyclone.swbell.net!pln-e!lotsanews.com!newsfeed.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail From: Robert A Duff Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GC, existed? the foreigner Date: 16 Jan 2004 17:29:16 -0500 Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Message-ID: References: <100glfb4e45iof0@corp.supernews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: pip1-5.std.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1074292156 22724 192.74.137.185 (16 Jan 2004 22:29:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 22:29:16 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4473 Date: 2004-01-16T17:29:16-05:00 List-Id: "Randy Brukardt" writes: > "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. 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