From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id LAA11762; Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:31:05 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA10920 for ; Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:31:04 +0100 (MET) Received: from mx2.ngi.de (mx2.ngi.de [213.191.74.84]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id i04AV3b22057 for ; Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:31:03 +0100 (MET) Received: (qmail 2694 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2004 10:20:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rz.zidlicky.org) ([217.185.112.217]) (envelope-sender ) by 0 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 4 Jan 2004 10:20:26 -0000 Received: by rz.zidlicky.org (Postfix, from userid 511) id 74130707DF; Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:23:40 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:23:40 +0100 From: Richard Zidlicky To: Sven Luther Cc: Xavier Leroy , caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] posting policy and spam Message-ID: <20040104102340.GA1795@linux-m68k.org> References: <20040103102449.D31406@pauillac.inria.fr> <20040103232837.GA20552@iliana> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040103232837.GA20552@iliana> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 2004:99 sven:01 luther:01 2004:99 caml-list:01 spamoracle:01 spamoracle:01 bayesian:01 bayesian:01 workaround:01 cope:02 address:96 04,:03 wrote:03 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 12:28:37AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:24:49AM +0100, Xavier Leroy wrote: > > There have been several complains recently about spam getting through > > the caml-list. > > > > For your information, the list is filtered through SpamOracle, and the > > posting address receives several hundred spams a day. Due to spammers > > getting more clever, the efficiency of the filtering went from perfect > > to about 99%. That's enough to let significant amounts of spam slip > > through. > > Well, on a similar subject, is there any chance of implementing a > workaround in spamoracle to counter those spams specifically designed to > fool the bayesian filters ? You know, those who have 4 lines of random > words in a text attachement, and then some html spam. > > I don't know if the bayesian filters or a modification thereof is able > to counter this kind of email, but i don't think so. n-grams should be able to cope with the random words. There is already at least one library at sf implementing them so I am not sure it is worth to reimplement it in spamoracle. Richard ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners