On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 3:23 AM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
> If you're doing it just on the subject, ok I'll go with that..
There's an MSc Thesis by Chris Kopsidas (then a student at the
University of Athens, back in 2012) where we worked explicitly on
subject lines of spams that went past SpamAss
On 2016-01-23 07:35, John Levine wrote:
RFC 5782 says that a live DNSxL does list 127.0.0.2 to show that it's
alive, and does not list 127.0.0.1 to show that it's not wildcarded.
We published that in 2010 but it was in draft form for quite a while
before that. For IPv6 BLs, you list :::127.0
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 exa
On 25/01/16 08:57, Dave Warren wrote:
> 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
>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?
Yeah, because the next day the spammer
