Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: mapilab.com

Stories and comments across the archive that link to mapilab.com.

Comments · 7

  1. Re:Not nearly enough information by ruvreve · · Score: 1 · on What Corporate Email Limits Do You Have?

    If the price for CommVault and EMC don't fit your budget, then check out http://www.mapilab.com./ They have an add-in call attachments processor that runs in outlook that will remove attachments, save them to a file system, and leave a shortcut to the file in the email. Works fine on public folders. Not a perfect solution, but total cost was $24.

  2. No, actually... by Beige+Tangerine · · Score: 1 · on Hotmail Blocks Gmail Emails (and Invites)
    I'm assuming he's talking about this:
    Microsoft Outlook 2003 Spam Filter: Under the hood

    There are multiple problems with what he said:
    1. The list appears to be automatically generated. Evidence of this includes "words" such as riilldijgjgjg that appear in the list of words to filter.
    2. When Linux appears in the subject, the "spam weight" of the message decreases.
    3. Message bodies containing the word Linux are rated as ever-so-slightly more likely to be spam. However, Linux is weighted as spam less than the word or, for example, not to mention such words as com and received, which tend to come up in e-mail every so often...
  3. No, actually... by Beige+Tangerine · · Score: 1 · on Hotmail Blocks Gmail Emails (and Invites)
    I'm assuming he's talking about this:
    Microsoft Outlook 2003 Spam Filter: Under the hood

    There are multiple problems with what he said:
    1. The list appears to be automatically generated. Evidence of this includes "words" such as riilldijgjgjg that appear in the list of words to filter.
    2. When Linux appears in the subject, the "spam weight" of the message decreases.
    3. Message bodies containing the word Linux are rated as ever-so-slightly more likely to be spam. However, Linux is weighted as spam less than the word or, for example, not to mention such words as com and received, which tend to come up in e-mail every so often...
  4. No, actually... by Beige+Tangerine · · Score: 1 · on Hotmail Blocks Gmail Emails (and Invites)
    I'm assuming he's talking about this:
    Microsoft Outlook 2003 Spam Filter: Under the hood

    There are multiple problems with what he said:
    1. The list appears to be automatically generated. Evidence of this includes "words" such as riilldijgjgjg that appear in the list of words to filter.
    2. When Linux appears in the subject, the "spam weight" of the message decreases.
    3. Message bodies containing the word Linux are rated as ever-so-slightly more likely to be spam. However, Linux is weighted as spam less than the word or, for example, not to mention such words as com and received, which tend to come up in e-mail every so often...
  5. No, actually... by Beige+Tangerine · · Score: 1 · on Hotmail Blocks Gmail Emails (and Invites)
    I'm assuming he's talking about this:
    Microsoft Outlook 2003 Spam Filter: Under the hood

    There are multiple problems with what he said:
    1. The list appears to be automatically generated. Evidence of this includes "words" such as riilldijgjgjg that appear in the list of words to filter.
    2. When Linux appears in the subject, the "spam weight" of the message decreases.
    3. Message bodies containing the word Linux are rated as ever-so-slightly more likely to be spam. However, Linux is weighted as spam less than the word or, for example, not to mention such words as com and received, which tend to come up in e-mail every so often...
  6. Outlook 2003's non-Bayesian junk filter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative · on Armoring Spam Against Anti-Spam Filters

    All spammers have to do is read this analysis of the filter, then included the weighted non-spam strings, while avoiding the spam weighted strings. Pretty simple to blow past their filter.

  7. OE's fixed filters by Nucleon500 · · Score: 1 · on Filter-foiling Gibberish Becoming A Spam Staple
    A while ago, I followed this link from someone's journal. The upshot is, Outlook 2003's spam filter consists of a data file set of (word, weight) pairs. They've been md5summed to obscure them, but a simple dictionary attack can retrieve 80% of the matches.

    Since the weights are fixed, it would be trivial to include random hammy words to get past it. It's a good example of the failure of security by obscurity - it wasn't difficult to reverse engineer the word list, and once the secret's out, it's easily exploited.

    I don't think the random words are likely to work on real, adaptive spam filters, though. At least not on the one I use.