Slashdot Mirror


Plan for Spam, Version 2

bugbear writes "I just posted a new version of the Plan for Spam Bayesian filtering algorithm. The big change is to mark tokens by context. The new version decreases spams missed by 50%, to 2.5 per 1000, even though spam has gotten harder to filter since the summer. I also talk about how spam will evolve, and what to do about it."

2 of 459 comments (clear)

  1. Spamassassin and ENDING spam.... by ajs · · Score: 5, Informative

    The latest development Spamassassin has an interesting application of Bayesian filtering. Basically, it takes all of SA's existing heuristics, uses that to develop a sense of what is and is not spam, and then pumps the results through a Bayesian filter that learns from these messages.

    As with any other SA test, no single element of the chain is trusted enough to definitively call something spam, but if a message would have squeeked through before, this new filter can put the final nail in its coffin through word analysis against previous spam.

    So, why did I use a subject about "ENDING spam"? Because one of the tools that spammers have is SA itself. They can use it to score their messages and determine how "spamish" it is. The problem now is that each SA installation will have subtly different scoring, and the message may be "ok" according to the spammer's version, but my version has a better sense of the mail that *I* get.

    SpamAssassin is definitely a tool worth checking out if you have not already. Install it in daemon mode (spamd) and then use "spamc -f" in your procmailrc or the equiv for your MTA.

    Very nice tool, and a real time-saver for me.

  2. Re:Spam needs a global solution (Global Solution) by minas-beede · · Score: 5, Informative

    OK, signal and noise. What if the signal was all in one frequency band and the noise all in another. Problem separating them? No.

    What if, in effect, a similar distinction held for spam in the transmission channel - that spam by itself selected a pathway to the recipient that was never used by the signal? Block that pathway and the spam never gets through.

    Spam doesn't select a pathway but spammers do. If you could block relay spam at the open relays it would be dead. You can't, of course - the open relays are controlled by people who don't know the need to block spam. You know that, I know that. If you can't change the people then change the open relays (from the spammers' points of view.) Set up a system that looks like an open relay and stop the spam. An open relay honeypot.

    I asked an operator of such a honeypot how he did last year:

    > How did 2002 end?

    From March 7 to December 26 2002, the total was:

    235,624,232

    Using one Pentium 90 he stopped spam to 235 million recipients. Think about that number when you see filter people reporting what they stop just for their own domains. This was spam to recipients all over, not simply to the honeypot operators domain: he operates at the relay level. He stopped 100% of the spam, no deception deceived him, no tuning was needed, no valid email was caught - it is perfect filtering. Perfect filtering - who else has that?

    And you can do it at home on your DSL or cable connection (the guy above uses sendmail -bd, but Windows users have a program they can use):

    http://jackpot.uk.net/

    Yeah, I know, spammers are switching to open proxies. So, write an open proxy honeypot. That, too, will be 100% efficient. In addition you now are giving spammers reason to fear every open relay and every open proxy they detect. FEAR. The SPAMMERS have to scramble. They have to scramble and they have to show everything they do to overcome the technique - there is no stealth way to look for open relays and open proxies.

    The problem is solved, it is a matter of implementation and of getting active systems everywhere in the net space (so there's no safe IP space for the spammers anywhere.)

    Remember: A single Pentium 90, 235 million spam messages stopped in 10 months.