on Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 11:03:09AM +0100, Kjetil Kjernsmo ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On Monday 29 December 2003 00:12, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > _Random_ padding won't be
> > effective. ?_Targeted_ padding will be, though spammers would have to
> > target the non-spam keyword list of individual
on Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 11:03:09AM +0100, Kjetil Kjernsmo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Monday 29 December 2003 00:12, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > _Random_ padding won't be
> > effective. ?_Targeted_ padding will be, though spammers would have to
> > target the non-spam keyword list of individual
On Monday 29 December 2003 00:12, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> _Random_ padding won't be
> effective. _Targeted_ padding will be, though spammers would have to
> target the non-spam keyword list of individual recipients to be
> highly effective (guessing wrong simply adds to the spamminess of an
> ind
On Monday 29 December 2003 00:12, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> _Random_ padding won't be
> effective. _Targeted_ padding will be, though spammers would have to
> target the non-spam keyword list of individual recipients to be
> highly effective (guessing wrong simply adds to the spamminess of an
> ind
on Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 01:25:30PM +, Dale Amon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I've been noticing loads of mails like this lately:
>
> Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:25:34 +0500
> From: "Joseph Jenkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: MIT, rest in peace!
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-Maile
on Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 01:25:30PM +, Dale Amon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I've been noticing loads of mails like this lately:
>
> Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:25:34 +0500
> From: "Joseph Jenkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: MIT, rest in peace!
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-Maile
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 12:00:43PM -0500, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 01:36:20PM +, Dale Amon wrote:
> > > I have yet to see a false positive caused by this even though I get
> > > quite a lot of this stuff and routinely mark it as spam.
> > I can't think of any other rea
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 12:00:43PM -0500, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 01:36:20PM +, Dale Amon wrote:
> > > I have yet to see a false positive caused by this even though I get
> > > quite a lot of this stuff and routinely mark it as spam.
> > I can't think of any other rea
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 04:08:14AM +, Nick Boyce wrote:
> Merry Happy Season Of Jollyness everyone
> Nick Boyce
> Bristol, UK
I'll second that: A Merry Christmas and a bug-free New
Year to all!
Dale Amon
Belfast, UK and/or Ireland ;-^
--
-
On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 04:08:14AM +, Nick Boyce wrote:
> Merry Happy Season Of Jollyness everyone
> Nick Boyce
> Bristol, UK
I'll second that: A Merry Christmas and a bug-free New
Year to all!
Dale Amon
Belfast, UK and/or Ireland ;-^
--
-
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:25:30 +, Dale Amon wrote:
>I've been noticing loads of mails like this lately:
>
> Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:25:34 +0500
> From: "Joseph Jenkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: MIT, rest in peace!
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-Mailer: mPOP Web-Mail 2.19
>
> emery
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:25:30 +, Dale Amon wrote:
>I've been noticing loads of mails like this lately:
>
> Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:25:34 +0500
> From: "Joseph Jenkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: MIT, rest in peace!
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-Mailer: mPOP Web-Mail 2.19
>
> emery
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 01:25:30PM +, Dale Amon wrote:
> I've been noticing loads of mails like this lately:
>
> Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:25:34 +0500
> From: "Joseph Jenkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: MIT, rest in peace!
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-Mailer: mPOP Web-Mail 2.
Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
This method is especially effective in the case where the bayesian
classifier only looks at the first MIME attachment, because the second
is then free to contain whatever spam tokens they want to put in it.
IIRC, this is how most bayesian filters behave.
noah
I got s
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 01:25:30PM +, Dale Amon wrote:
> I've been noticing loads of mails like this lately:
>
> Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:25:34 +0500
> From: "Joseph Jenkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: MIT, rest in peace!
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-Mailer: mPOP Web-Mail 2.
Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
This method is especially effective in the case where the bayesian
classifier only looks at the first MIME attachment, because the second
is then free to contain whatever spam tokens they want to put in it.
IIRC, this is how most bayesian filters behave.
noah
I got such a
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 01:36:20PM +, Dale Amon wrote:
> > I have yet to see a false positive caused by this even though I get
> > quite a lot of this stuff and routinely mark it as spam.
>
> I can't think of any other reason for someone to do it
> though. There has to be a point. Someone is g
> One technique that's being used a lot is to get books in electronic form
and
> put a coupld of sentences in every spam (sentences from a book will pass
> gramatical checking etc, unlike the example you posted above). Also
text
> from a book will have the right ratio of words, you will almost nev
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 01:36:20PM +, Dale Amon wrote:
> > I have yet to see a false positive caused by this even though I get
> > quite a lot of this stuff and routinely mark it as spam.
>
> I can't think of any other reason for someone to do it
> though. There has to be a point. Someone is g
Dale Amon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I can only assume someone out there is trying to attack
> bayesian systems by loading them up with all sorts of
> normal words so that good mail gets false positives, thus
> breaking the systems.
I have yet to see a false positive caused by this even though
> One technique that's being used a lot is to get books in electronic form
and
> put a coupld of sentences in every spam (sentences from a book will pass
> gramatical checking etc, unlike the example you posted above). Also
text
> from a book will have the right ratio of words, you will almost nev
Dale Amon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I can only assume someone out there is trying to attack
> bayesian systems by loading them up with all sorts of
> normal words so that good mail gets false positives, thus
> breaking the systems.
I have yet to see a false positive caused by this even though
This discussion has some minor relevance to debian-isp, but nothing to do with
debian-security. Let's move the discussion to debian-isp.
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:25, Dale Amon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been noticing loads of mails like this lately:
>
> emery atrocious larval drippy elate
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 01:25:30PM +, Dale Amon wrote:
> I've been noticing loads of mails like this lately:
>
> Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:25:34 +0500
> From: "Joseph Jenkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: MIT, rest in peace!
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-Mailer: mPOP Web-Mail 2.1
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 01:32:23PM +, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> I have yet to see a false positive caused by this even though I get
> quite a lot of this stuff and routinely mark it as spam.
I can't think of any other reason for someone to do it
though. There has to be a point. Someone is going t
I've been noticing loads of mails like this lately:
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:25:34 +0500
From: "Joseph Jenkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MIT, rest in peace!
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: mPOP Web-Mail 2.19
emery atrocious larval drippy elate incontrollable raster anglicanis
This discussion has some minor relevance to debian-isp, but nothing to do with
debian-security. Let's move the discussion to debian-isp.
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:25, Dale Amon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been noticing loads of mails like this lately:
>
> emery atrocious larval drippy elate
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 01:25:30PM +, Dale Amon wrote:
> I've been noticing loads of mails like this lately:
>
> Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:25:34 +0500
> From: "Joseph Jenkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: MIT, rest in peace!
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-Mailer: mPOP Web-Mail 2.1
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 01:32:23PM +, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> I have yet to see a false positive caused by this even though I get
> quite a lot of this stuff and routinely mark it as spam.
I can't think of any other reason for someone to do it
though. There has to be a point. Someone is going t
I've been noticing loads of mails like this lately:
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:25:34 +0500
From: "Joseph Jenkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MIT, rest in peace!
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: mPOP Web-Mail 2.19
emery atrocious larval drippy elate incontrollable raster anglicanis
30 matches
Mail list logo
