Re: [Full-Disclosure] spam with anti-bayesian parts

["Paul Farrow" <pfarrow@flamenetworks.co.uk>]

Ahhh! dont give the spammers ideas :o
But I dare say it'd be harder to program a random spam message that needs to
grab new text from a site, unless the site has an XML feed or something...
no more ideas! i get enough free viagra, online meds, home remorgages,
financial aid, and paris hilton sex tapes daily - i wonder how many filters
just marked this as spam...


> To wind up the earlier thread I started when I thought it might have been
a
> misbehaving worm:
>
> The first spams with 2 lines of ad and 20 lines of random garbage words
> arrived in my mailbox yesterday, going cleanly through the bayesian
filters.
> The explanations on this list are thus proven correct.
>
> The filters DID give them a 70% spam probability based on bayesian
> filtering, so I figure it will be a matter of some training and they'll go
> away.
>
>
> What I'm wondering is:
> Why do the spammers even go to the length of using random words? Those are
> easy to filter out with some heuristics (e.g. missing punctuation). Why
> don't they grab some real text, say from a news site? There's an endless
> supply of new, proper text out there.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html