RE: IMPORTANT: your message to html-tidy

["Julian Mehnle" <lists@mehnle.net>]

Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> I suggest you to take a look at Paul Graham's writings on filtering spam,
> some of which are: 
> 
> http://www.paulgraham.com/spam.html
> http://www.paulgraham.com/better.html

Thanks, I'll take a look at them.  I already know about bayesian spam
filtering, though.

> It is very hard for a spam not to try to be snappy and call your
> attention - Spam will almost always be text/html, not text/plain. Spam
> will VERY LIKELY BE ALL CAPS, FULL WITH EXCLAMATIONS!!!!

What leads you to this conclusion?

> In short: If a spammer resorts to writing genuine-looking email, it will
> be a less effective publicity, as it will catch fewer eyeballs.

As of now, which type of spam is more certain to be faced with devotion by a
reader?  The "text/html, 4LL CAP5 W1TH FULL EXCL4M4T10N5!!!" one?  Or the
genuine-looking one?

You see, times are changing, and so is spam.  Spammers will always find a
form for their spam that passes your favorite content-based filter, be it
a form similar to this:

Riku Voipio wrote:
> [...] This is my theory, bayesian will lead to spam like THIS: 
> 
> -cut-
> From: John Doe <john.doe@mail>
> To: me <ansa@kos.to>
> Subject: FYI
> 
> Hi, FYI, I just updated my website, what do you think about it?
> <URL:http://www....>
> -cut-

That is exactly my point, and only a human (or a machine with comparable
intelligence) will ever be able to correctly and confidently decide whether
such a mail is spam.

Even if such a spam doesn't stick out from the joe average genuine mail
traffic, the fact alone that it hasn't been classified as spam will
guarantee it a high probability of being read sooner or later by the user.
So, there isn't really a need for spam to "stick out" to be effective.