[SAtalk] Improvement: Image Recognition as spam criteria

2004-01-15 Thread manitu
Dear readers, while using Spamassassin for about one month and having a very good recognition rate I am discovering that spam that has almost or no text within does not get detected by SpamAssassin, neither by normal criteria nor by the Bayes filter. I think because there is not enough information

Re: [SAtalk] Improvement: Image Recognition as spam criteria

2004-01-15 Thread Mat Harris
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 11:11:34 -0600, Bob Apthorpe wrote: > You could just normalize the images to a 64x64 bitmap with a reduced color > depth (12bpp; ~48kb uncompressed) and store that; there are probably some > optical cross-correlation techniques you can use to measure how similar > the images

RE: [SAtalk] Improvement: Image Recognition as spam criteria

2004-01-15 Thread Bob Apthorpe
Hi, On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Rose, Bobby wrote: > From: Alexander Litvinov > > > Hint: I think we should store these things in a SQL database instead > > of in the file system, shouldn't we? > Can't you hide messages in jpeg? If they created an engine that > embedded a hidden random word in the ima

Re: [SAtalk] Improvement: Image Recognition as spam criteria

2004-01-15 Thread Rich Puhek
Alexander Litvinov wrote: Hint: I think we should store these things in a SQL database instead of in the file system, shouldn't we? It is even possible to replace Berkeley DB with sql frontend and allow to use postgres and for those who don't want to use sql server - sqlite From the work curre

RE: [SAtalk] Improvement: Image Recognition as spam criteria

2004-01-15 Thread SpamTalk
> -Original Message- > From: Manuel Schmitt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 8:09 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [SAtalk] Improvement: Image Recognition as spam criteria > > Dear readers, > > while using Spamassassin for a

RE: [SAtalk] Improvement: Image Recognition as spam criteria

2004-01-15 Thread Rose, Bobby
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 10:06 AM To: Manuel Schmitt; snowchyld; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Improvement: Image Recognition as spam criteria > Hint: I think we should store these things in a SQL database instead > of in the file system, shouldn't we? It is even possi

Re: [SAtalk] Improvement: Image Recognition as spam criteria

2004-01-15 Thread Manuel Schmitt
Who would be the best developer in the SA team for this? - Original Message - From: "Alexander Litvinov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Manuel Schmitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 4:40 PM Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Improvement: Image Recogni

Re: [SAtalk] Improvement: Image Recognition as spam criteria

2004-01-15 Thread Alexander Litvinov
> Hint: I think we should store these things in a SQL database instead of in > the file system, shouldn't we? It is even possible to replace Berkeley DB with sql frontend and allow to use postgres and for those who don't want to use sql server - sqlite > > possibley even design a DCC / pyzor / r

Re: [SAtalk] Improvement: Image Recognition as spam criteria

2004-01-15 Thread Manuel Schmitt
AIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Manuel Schmitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 3:11 PM Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Improvement: Image Recognition as spam criteria > i like this idea, > > possibley even design a DCC / pyzor / razor type s

Re: [SAtalk] Improvement: Image Recognition as spam criteria

2004-01-15 Thread snowchyld
, 2004 4:08 PM Subject: [SAtalk] Improvement: Image Recognition as spam criteria > Dear readers, > > while using Spamassassin for about one month and having a very good > recognition rate I am discovering that spam that has almost or no text > within does not get detected by SpamAssassin

[SAtalk] Improvement: Image Recognition as spam criteria

2004-01-15 Thread Manuel Schmitt
Dear readers, while using Spamassassin for about one month and having a very good recognition rate I am discovering that spam that has almost or no text within does not get detected by SpamAssassin, neither by normal criteria nor by the Bayes filter. I think because there is not enough information