From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <2b7ff40e59acfd34ede485505064c34a@plan9.escet.urjc.es>
From: Fco.J.Ballesteros <nemo@plan9.escet.urjc.es>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] spam filtering fs
In-Reply-To: <b89f5f87b787fdcd291b8f80d2d87dd8@yourdomain.dom>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="upas-cenawdsonvhmkmkxrynqzyjouy"
Date: Mon,  1 Sep 2003 16:16:51 +0200
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 27c8e5f0-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--upas-cenawdsonvhmkmkxrynqzyjouy
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I'd prefer a plain filter that could be called form pipeto, and
regarding training, I'd prefer to be able to use a different program,
say, upas/spam -y <spammail, so I could run it from within my mail
reader. Since you asked for opinions... :-)
--upas-cenawdsonvhmkmkxrynqzyjouy
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Received: from mail.cse.psu.edu ([130.203.4.6]) by aquamar; Mon Sep  1 14:49:33 MDT 2003
Received: by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server, from userid 60001)
	id 6688B19A9D; Mon,  1 Sep 2003 08:49:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu (psuvax1.cse.psu.edu [130.203.16.6])
	by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP
	id 22C7B19A98; Mon,  1 Sep 2003 08:49:09 -0400 (EDT)
X-Original-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Delivered-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Received: by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server, from userid 60001)
	id A503B19A9D; Mon,  1 Sep 2003 08:48:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from larch (unknown [195.173.15.12])
	by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 5293E19A78
	for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Mon,  1 Sep 2003 08:48:40 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <b89f5f87b787fdcd291b8f80d2d87dd8@yourdomain.dom>
From: steve.simon@snellwilcox.com
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [9fans] spam filtering fs
Sender: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu
Errors-To: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu
X-BeenThere: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
List-Id: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans.cse.psu.edu>
List-Archive: <https://lists.cse.psu.edu/archives/9fans/>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 13:48:39 +0100
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.4 required=5.0
	tests=NO_REAL_NAME,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM
	version=2.55
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp)

Hi,

I'am starting to think about a spam filtering again.

I plan to use Paul Grahams ideas plus the changes
sugested by Gary Robinson; Basicially a Naive Baiesian
classifier.

I think its best to implement it as a filesystem which overlays
upas/fs which is transparent to valid email but opaque to spam,
this meanst the token frequency database remains in RAM, not
having to be reloaded to test each new email.

In order for the filter to learn the user must be able to classify
the few spams that slip through, so I propose to wstat() emails
to zero length before deletion if they are spam and simply delete
them if they are valid.

In the longer term I have some ideas about fingerprinting attached
images, adding tokens for "is html email", "has MS screen-saver attached"
etc.

Anyone any opinions on this approach?

-Steve
--upas-cenawdsonvhmkmkxrynqzyjouy--