stanislav shalunov wrote:
Further, in its *present* form, where unfamiliar words are given 0.2
spam probability, easily defeated by just adding a lot of randomly
generated `words' like 9nscS9Ft, iuiF0kKw, 6AycPEbU, nsUdjGeP, etc.
Given enough of these, the Bayesian probability formula will declare
even a piece of mail that consists of a sales pitch for a pornographic
web site have a probability of being spam that is arbitrarily close to
0.2.
Is that true? The approach described looks only at the 15 words furthest
from 0.5; it seems likely that most messages that would rank at 0.9 or
above would have enough spam-words that words at 0.2 wouldn't show up.
One thing that would be necessary, and that the author doesn't mention,
would be to decode content-encodings before applying the filter;
otherwise spammers could just base64 all their messages.
--
/=============================================================\
|John Stracke |jstracke(_at_)centivinc(_dot_)com |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centivinc.com |
|Centiv |My opinions are my own. |
|=============================================================|
|*BOOM* "Thank you, Beaker. Now we know that is definitely too|
|much gunpowder." -- Dr. Bunsen Honeydew |
\=============================================================/