Re: please kindly get back to me

Matti Aarnio
2002-06-03T19:23:40Z

On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 12:06:53PM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 10:00:46PM +0300, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> > Anti-spam technology really needs constant evolution, as those
> > spammers do evolve themselves...
>
> If ever there was something which was screaming for an open source project,
> it's spam filtering. It seems like every major mailing list has someone
> like Matti, working really hard on a thankless task, but losing out under
> the tide of new spam every day. Seems to me if there was a public repository
> (sourceforge, bkbits, whatever) with a collection of procmail filters which
> have been shown to work correctly, that would be a win.

Larry,

Best technologies (as I see them, but I am not omniscient, of course)
are those that do scoring. E.g. naving some word NN might not alone
be considered spam-signature, but it might increase score, and once
the score exceeds arbitrary treshold (lower with short messages?),
the message is considered spam, and rejected.

Some recent TEXT/PLAIN spams have been encoded in BASE64 or ingenous
QUOTED-PRINTABLE to avoid several common Perl-RE pattern using filters.

I think there are several free codes of this kind available, but my time
has been chronically over-subscribed to do radical things like taking
this kind of codes into use.

> --
> Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm

/Matti Aarnio