[Spambayes] (no subject)

[Tim Stone]

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 23:07:34 -0500, Laurent Amar 
<laurent.amar at amarconsulting.com> wrote:


> 1)     When I mark a message as good (“ham?”) does SP automatically 
> records
> who it is from and consider all mail from that person good regardless of 
> the
> wording?  If not, would you think that this is a good idea?

Most mail clients support some form of "whitelisting."  It's just outside 
of the scope of the Spambayes project to maintain a whitelist, or other 
forms of spam filtering.  The good news is, with Spambayes, it turns out 
that you don't need it anyway (generally speaking).

> 2)     When I receive  SPAM and mark it as such (confirm it is SPAM)  
> Does
> SP send an e-mail to the spammer saying that their e-mail did not go
> through?  Which other ways are there to give an incentive to Spammer to
> remove people from their list?  By looking at the address their mail 
> comes
> from it looks like their address are sometimes automatically generated in
> hotmail and most likely, they never even read the response they may get.

Usually, a spammer does not give his own email address, to prevent 
mailflood counters.  If the return address is valid, it's for another 
innocent victim.  The problem with responding to that address is that 
you'll only be annoying someone who can do as much about it as you can.

> 3)     Also there are a lot of spam e-mails I receive that has a bunch of
> nonsense characters inserted in between words.  Example of subject lines
> *               Re: KNGWMGHO, he would fall
> *               Re: WWXURLAE, those two! Though
> *               Re: JSCWOL, uttering preposterous things
> *               Do  you have any idea how to identify these strings of 
> text
> that make no sense and flag that?  (for example, any word with more than 
> X
> vowels in a raw

We've looked at some schemes that involve tokenizing random and 
intentionally misspelled words, but to date we've not seen any significant 
improvement over the existing technology.  We can catch the vast majority 
of spams already.  Most of us have capture rates over 99%.  Until the 
spammers dream up a way to both fool us AND make a mail that people will 
still be able to understand, spambayes will not likely need much in this 
way.

>
> I do not know if you were interested in this kind of suggestions or would
> have time to respond but just in case…

Thanks for taking the time to drop us a line!  Keep an eye out for future 
releases...

-- 

Tim Stone