Re: IMPORTANT: your message to html-tidy

[Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>]

On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 11:24:05AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Julian Mehnle dijo [Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 12:50:51PM +0200]:
> > I.e. after prolonged, widespread use of content-based filters, spam 
> > won't be easily distinguishable from your normal mail traffic 
> > anymore from a machine's point of view. 
> 
> http://www.paulgraham.com/spam.html
> http://www.paulgraham.com/better.html
 
> In short: If a spammer resorts to writing genuine-looking email, it will
> be a less effective publicity, as it will catch fewer eyeballs. Few
> articles dominate 80% of the spamming scene, and we can almost-safely
> mark them all as spam.

That Pauls theory. 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-

For very short messages bayesian filtering is pretty uneffective. 
And even worse, a normal looking mail is far more deceptive than a 
glaringly obvious spam.

However, a short spam is very hard to variate, and thus vulnerable
to fingerprint and easy do dig a metch from razor/dcc. There isn't
Golden Hammer to spam problem. You have to combine several methods:
bayesian, fingerprinting and blacklists. aka spamassassin.

-- 
Riku Voipio  	       |    riku.voipio@iki.fi         |
kirkkonummentie 33     |    +358 40 8476974          --+--
02140 Espoo            |                               |
dark> A bad analogy is like leaky screwdriver          |