On 2016-01-22 19:24, John R Levine wrote:
What get's spammers caught is that eventually they
have to sell you something
Gee, did we drop through a wormhole into 1998 or something?
He's missing a few somethings.
Spammers might not be trying to sell you something.
No kidding. The classic example is pump and dump, where they're
trying to get you to call your own stockbroker to buy the stock
they're touting, with no direct contact at all with the spammer.
Even with stuff like drug spam, the number of throwaway domains and
redirections between the spam and the payload site is likely to be
somewhat higher than someone might expect. A *lot* higher.
While all of that is true, IF his claims were true (an idea could
magically detect any spam trying to sell you something) would you walk
away from a magic pill that completely and perfectly identified one
particular type of spam and didn't hit any ham?
I don't think that this solution is that, but spam filtering has always
been about multiple layers and approaches, some of which will excel for
different types of spam, and combining the results of multiple filters
and rulesets has, in my experience, always worked better than any one
single approach.
Bayes is good at categorizing mail, but I don't think "Trying to sell
something" is necessarily even a spam-sign, lots of legitimate and
desired mail is trying to sell me something too. At the same time,
everything I've read about this new method seems to be a slightly
modified bayes approach (with the twist of taking word pairs or triplets
into account) and I doubt it will be a real game changer, although it
may result in some new ways to tune bayes to increase effectiveness.
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.com/
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
