DSPAM v2.10 Released

Nuclear Elephant writes "DSPAM v2.10 is finally available, after four months of development. This is the first stable release to include Bayesian Noise Reduction which was recently mentioned on Slashdot and in Wired News as an algorithm providing accuracy levels as high as 10x that of a human. Some other new features include Neural Networking - which finds nodes in a network that are contextually similar to form a decision matrix, Global Filtering - which provides SpamAssassin-like out-of-the-box type filtering for new users until they build up their own wordlist, Automatic Whitelisting - which automatically learns who your trusted senders are, and many other optimizations and enhancements. Head on over and download the latest tar ball."

Comments

The real problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The real problem is people who actually buy this stuff. If no one was buying things from spam, no one would send spam. We all know this.

I propose we start spamming. Anyone who responds gets a nice l'il pistol whipping and is returned to their comptuer. After the first news report, people will be afraid to respond to spam.

Re:The real problem

[kramer]

I think the best answer the 'If nobody would by this stuff...' argument was:

Spam works on the level of 1 in 10,000. The general population contains a far higher rate of mental illness, senility, and retardation.

You'll never cure spam by 'education' of any sort. There are some people who are just too crazy or too stupid to learn.

Re:The real problem

[Anonymous Coward]

All these suggestions make the naive assumption that people in general learn from past mistakes.

I still prefer tougher email security

[NanoGator]

This may work for a little while, but the creative peeps will find a way around it.

I say forget the filtering shit and force email to evolve. Part of the reason that spam happens is that there is no real authentication going on. No requesting permission to be on your white list. No real strong way to block anybody you don't want to hear from. No real way to verify the sender is legit. etc.

I don't claim to have all the answers, but I do know that I've been using ICQ for years and haven't seen a Spam from there since I turned on the 'require authorization' feature.

Put this into Slashcode? heh

[dsanfte]

By the looks of the Intel story below, Slashdot sure needs a good Bayesian spam filter. I recommend this. Or a baseball bat. Because you can go over to anti-slash and really pound some skulls with a baseball bat, and it would probably be more satisfying. But filters are good too, don't get me wrong.

Explained in the last DSPAM /. story

[devphil]

except that my article history is truncated in a futile attempt to get me to subscribe. So I can't point to the writeup I did.

The increased accuracy comes from the emails that will slip under your mental radar. You are a human, and you make mistakes. You wouldn't deliberately choose to read the email, but one day the subject line looks plausible, and so you bring it up. Three-quarters of a second later, you're glaring at the monitor and hitting "delete", but DSPAM wouldn't have let that slip by in the first place.