Slashdot Mirror
Proving Which Spam Filters work Best
pirateninja writes "Dr. Gord Cormack decided to find and prove what the best spam filter is. In his study he looked at the major spam filters (DSPAM, SpamAssassin, etc.) along with those submitted by various academics. The results are quite surprising, with a previously unheard-of spam filter, which uses ideas from various compression algorithms, performing the best overall. He recently presented the results and methodology used in a presentation titled 'Spam Filters, Do they Work? and Can you prove it?'" Note that this is a video of his presentation.
... the ones which have worked best (for me) are Bayesian Spam Filters (A Plan for Spam, SpamBayes - a free filter) and CRM114 The Controllable Regex Mutilator (Paul Graham mentions it here). I've always had a very high success rate with these.
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net
I like
I'm getting 8kb/s downloads from the site, it's just like the good old days !
I'll post more next week after I watch the video.
Hey Slashdot, what's up, man! Dude, I read your thing and like totally agree about Best Work Proving Spam Site Work! Dude, that's awesome!
Bro, in the same vein, I was totally checking out this dope ass site which you might wanna check out too man. Guys like us that dig Spam Which Proving and Best work Filters will be all over this before long...
OK, man take care until I see you this Friday at the dinner thing, Slashdot!
Cheers,
John
So, how are we supposed to RTFA then the FA is over 470MB and a video file. Why not just a nice simple text summary Mr Submitter, but nooooo that would just be too easy!
Orationem pulchram non habens, scribo ista linea in lingua Latina
Although I haven't WTFV (watched the video), it doesn't seem surprising that spam filters which use techniques that aren't used widely would be most successful.
If they aren't used widely, it would either be because they don't work, or they do work but they haven't caught on [yet].
It's like any other fad. As an example, when the original Survivor series came out, it was really popular because it achieved its goal (attracting viewers) in a way that was original. Heck, even I watched the original one. Now that all the networks are doing the reality TV thing, it has become hackneyed, and each successive version of survivor does a worse job of achieving its goal. And I've given up watching TV.
With antispam, new techniques are effective, but as they become more popular and more widely used, spammers will find equally innovative ways of getting around them.
I've noticed that at any given time, there will be a particular style of (non-blank) spam that manages to get through Gmail's filters fairly consistently, but every now and then Gmail adapts its spam filters to block the successful spam type of the season, and eventually a new type will make its way through.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
We use Brightmail on our campus and our users love it with its very low false positive and pretty accurate flagging of SPAM. Another campus uses DSPAM and some people are up in arms at the prospect of losing their Brightmail to switch to DSPAM. Personally, DSPAM isn't nearly as good and has flagged many legitamate messages and sent them to the Junk folder.
I also echo a gripe of other posters. Its nice to have a video but 500MB video file it a bit much. A 50KB pie chart or bar graph would have been nice.
The spammers actively try to subvert the more popular filters. That gives a lesser-known one a decided advantage, one which will go away as it becomes more popular.
As with most choices like this, factors such as ease of use, speed, and resource efficiency can overshadow selectivity. No system is perfect, so it's perfectly reasonable to go with a system that's pretty good if you already are using it, rather than switching to the latest cool thing.
I have found that using two dissimilar systems in a chain is quite effective.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
I uuencoded the video file, translated it into Sumerian cuneiform, and pressed it into a billion little clay tablets. They are cooking in my oven right now. Now, the Internet is NOT some kind of truck you can just dump stuff onto, so if you want to get the data you're going to have to come to my house.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Hey _vSyncBomb,
Having trouble pleasing your woman? I've got something Very Interesting And Generally Really Amusing that you could try!!!
Your buddy,
_vAnoymousCoward
The official tests of spamfilters were done in last year's TREC conference, you can read the writeup here (or pdf overview).
You can duplicate those tests yourself if you download the evaluation toolkit (GPL). It's a modular system where you can add a mail corpus (either one of the public TREC ones, or you can make your own trivially), and add a spamfilter package (there are 10 or so to download from the web, or create your own as per documentation).
There's also a video talk given at Microsoft research which should cover pretty much the same ground, if text mode is slashdotted :).
There's a new scheduled test towards the end of the year at TREC 2006.
Dear Slashdot,
At the university where I work, they have recently adopted a pesky policy banning the use of bitTorrent.
What can I do to fix this ?
Yours faithfully,
Dr. Gord Cormack
Why exactly should be give any weight to anything from and organization so ignorant as to disallow bittorrent? I take someone pretty darn ignorant to disallow a protocol because some use it to transport illegal content. Why havn't then banned TCP? It is an evil technology used every day to violate copyright.
This guy should spend his time educating the fools at his institution.
Gordon Cormack and Thomas Lynam
Full Text, May 29, 2006 - PDF Format
http://plg.uwaterloo.ca/~gvcormac/spamcormack.html /
The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
I use greylisting (gld to be specific) which works wonderfully. A couple of customers wanted even better filtering...
First I tried DSPAM, but they refused to train it so the results weren't good. Then I tried Spam Assasin, which also let through a suprising amount of spam - a lot more than my personal account on Gmail.
So I set up accounts on Gmail for them, and forwarded their mail to those accounts (after greylisting - don't want to burden GMail too much!). Gmail lets you set up forwarding, so I simply forwarded all the filtered mail back to a second account on my mailserver for the customer to pick up. Finally I wrote a python script that logs in to Gmail once a week to prevent the account being closed due to non-use.
A tad involved, but it works like a dream. Yet again Google comes out on top, this time in a market it doesn't even know it's in!
Do as you would be done to.
This paper's a complete waste of time.
He tested spamassassin 2.3 - that's ancient! I'd imagine the other tools are similarly obsolete.
We currently use SA 3.1.4 with a well-trained Bayes database and Razor, Pyzor, and DCC.
Throw in a few custom rules and a selection of rules from http://www.rulesemporium.com/ and the results are outstanding.
With the new sa-update feature the core rules are updated between point releases, which came in useful this week dealing with the new image spams which seemed to be designed to avoid detection by spamassassin. Thanks Theo.
And the folk on the spamassassin-users mailing list really rock.
I ran your message through a perl script to mail it to me for giggles (I do research on spam filtering at ye olde day job). Regretfully, you didn't make it through. Aside from header garbage, which was a mixed bag (half spam tokens, half "known-good automated email" tokens), you ran into problems with dope, ass, wanna, and... work*. Which is just as well, as I have no desire to speak to anyone who uses those words. * Last 15 occurrences in my mailbox are all of the "Make l0ads of $$$ work @ h0m3!" variety.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.