Re: Spam and spam filtering, a problem new to me
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 09/25/06 16:13, Peter Teunissen wrote:
>>
>>> On 25-sep-2006, at 22:55, Ron Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> On 09/25/06 15:14, Paul E Condon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Over tha past few weeks, I have started receiving spam email that
>>>>> contains text the is all well formed words, but doesn't make sense as
>>>>> a spam message, or as any other sort of communication. I think I have
>>>>> found what is going on:
>>>>>
>>>>> The email *does* contain a message. It is contained in a .gif or .png
>>>>> or other image format file. These are not pictures of naked ladies,
>>>>> but images of text that touts various penny stocks. If I didn't use
>>>>> mutt, I might not have had so much puzzlement over them. I suppose
>>>>> with Outlook all the user sees is the image, which is clearly spam,
>>>>> but the user doesn't see what the spam filter sees, so, it seems, no
>>>>> amount of filter fiddling will protect against this. What to do? Are
>>>>> there new filtering techniques beyond spamassassin?
>>>>>
>>>> They are specifically designed to get around SA's traditional
>>>> filtering process. Using sa-learn to train the Bayesian filter,
>>>> along with the regular filters, helps a lot.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I've been NOT feeding them to sa-learn, since I thought they would mess
>>> up spamassassins bayesian filter. If it trains itself on random
>>> non-spam
>>> words, couldn't it make the bayesian filter less effective or even
>>> start
>>> generating more false positives?
>>>
>>
>> You'd think, wouldn't you. However, I've had no issues with false
>> positives, even after setting the threshold down to 4.2.
>>
>> - --
>> Ron Johnson, Jr.
>> Jefferson LA USA
>>
>> Is "common sense" really valid?
>> For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
>> whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
>> are mud people.
>> However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>>
>> iD8DBQFFGHK0S9HxQb37XmcRAt9OAJ9Aot0XyOJ8wPVtFaYqcP/OArLDsACfcF3R
>> sdMe7JFeBe1+Qgz40YwLNh8=
>> =83zz
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>>
>>
> There is the fuzzyocr plugin for spamassassin. It may be what you are
> looking for.
>
>
looks promising, but it involves installing stuff from either backports or
testing. I'm a little reluctant to do so on my server. If I feel lucky, I
might just give it a try. Anyone with some real life experiences?
Peter
Reply to: