Re: Attempts to poison bayesian systems
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 01:22, "Jason Lim" <maillist@jasonlim.com> wrote:
> That won't work very well with Spamassassin, as it doesn't rely on
> bayesian filtering alone, and also uses header check and dnsbl checks. So
> you are correct... it does lower the bayesian score with these "random
> legitimate" sentences, but doesn't get them through completely unless you
> are using something like popfilter or such that only have bayesian
> filtering. And also note they can't only have these sentences in their
> emails... they must still have the "catch line" like "increase pen1s size"
> or something like that, and the bayesian filter will, over time, learn
> that all the other words are not as important as "pen1s" and these other
> words. So eventually it will work... at least that's my understanding of
> it. Feel free to improve or correct the above.
True. It doesn't defeat all the filters, just the weak ones. Getting rid of
weak filters is necessary for the community anyway so it just accellerates
the inevitable.
Also it makes it slightly more difficult for good filters to catch the spam,
but at the cost of making the spam less effective.
Guys who will get their credit card out when reading a clear message offering
to double their penis size probably won't do so if the penis message is mixed
in with Shakespeare...
--
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Reply to: