I started using a filter called Spammunition a while ago. It's a free Bayesian filter for MS Outlook. (Not my ideal mail client but it's what we use at work). It's great. No false positives, and catches all my spam.
I noticed that there are a lack of MS Outlook-specific bayesian filtering programs out there. I've been using a Bayesian filter called Spammunition with great results. It integrates into Outlook, and it's free. Still a beta product though, so it's a little buggy. But the bayesian approach definitely works. I don't have to deal with spam any more!
Actually Bayesian filters are still extremely effective in the circumstances you mention. Paul Graham talks about all of them in his article A Plan For Spam. I'll run down the list.
a) Short messages do get caught. The bayesian filter doesn't just look at the email body; it looks at the email header as well. There's just as much damning evidence of spam in the email header as the body. All the URLs and header "signatures" of spammers are pretty easily identified after you've gotten a lot of spam.
b) I've noticed that misspelled words aren't that bad frankly. The email headers are still valuable here. You'd have to misspell every word in the whole spam message to really try to get the filter to choke. And then, the spammers return rate is going to go down. They don't want that. And even if they do misspell EVERYTHING, the email header is still going to be fishy.
c) Spammers can't really use common words to get their message across. If they do, they get a worse return rate, and they don't make any money. They need flashy marketing words, things like FREE and SALE and VIAGRA and PORN. Plus, most of them use terms like "unsubscribe" or "offers" to make it try to sound legitimate. These words are all dead ringers for spam. And again, the email header is of course going to get them caught.
d) Most of the spam I get now is simply just a picture. And the bayesian filter I use catches all of them. Again, not to sound like a broken record, but the email headers are really effective in catching this stuff, regardless of the message body. And the HTML tags that spammers use in their email is also pretty recognizable. Things like color codes or whatever. Specifically for pictures, the IMG tag of course needs to have a domain name in the URL of the image, and that most likely is going to be good evidence for spam.
Bayesian filters still work well against all the scenarios you point out.
Since he likes spam so much, what about sending him some other nice gifts for the holidays, like a Spam coffee mug or a Spam notepad? There are lots of inexpensive items that can be found on www.spamgift.com.
Remember, he gives the gift of spam to everyone else. Remember to send a gift to him.
This is one way to deal with spam, but if you spam a spammer, you will become a spammer (...) So @ the end the whole internet will slow down. I think we can better look for better alternatives.
I disagree. Spamming the spammers is one of the best ways to get back at them. Make them feel the pain they bring on us. Taste of their own medicine. Spammers are lowlifes that attempt to hide behind a wall of first-amendment protection. Of course, it's bullshit, but they'll try to get away with it as long as possible. Spammers should experience the annoyance of spam just like everyone else. And it sounds like this guy is getting exactly what he deserves.
Slashdot Mirror
I started using a filter called Spammunition a while ago. It's a free Bayesian filter for MS Outlook. (Not my ideal mail client but it's what we use at work). It's great. No false positives, and catches all my spam.
I noticed that there are a lack of MS Outlook-specific bayesian filtering programs out there. I've been using a Bayesian filter called Spammunition with great results. It integrates into Outlook, and it's free. Still a beta product though, so it's a little buggy. But the bayesian approach definitely works. I don't have to deal with spam any more!
Actually Bayesian filters are still extremely effective in the circumstances you mention. Paul Graham talks about all of them in his article A Plan For Spam. I'll run down the list.
a) Short messages do get caught. The bayesian filter doesn't just look at the email body; it looks at the email header as well. There's just as much damning evidence of spam in the email header as the body. All the URLs and header "signatures" of spammers are pretty easily identified after you've gotten a lot of spam.
b) I've noticed that misspelled words aren't that bad frankly. The email headers are still valuable here. You'd have to misspell every word in the whole spam message to really try to get the filter to choke. And then, the spammers return rate is going to go down. They don't want that. And even if they do misspell EVERYTHING, the email header is still going to be fishy.
c) Spammers can't really use common words to get their message across. If they do, they get a worse return rate, and they don't make any money. They need flashy marketing words, things like FREE and SALE and VIAGRA and PORN. Plus, most of them use terms like "unsubscribe" or "offers" to make it try to sound legitimate. These words are all dead ringers for spam. And again, the email header is of course going to get them caught.
d) Most of the spam I get now is simply just a picture. And the bayesian filter I use catches all of them. Again, not to sound like a broken record, but the email headers are really effective in catching this stuff, regardless of the message body. And the HTML tags that spammers use in their email is also pretty recognizable. Things like color codes or whatever. Specifically for pictures, the IMG tag of course needs to have a domain name in the URL of the image, and that most likely is going to be good evidence for spam.
Bayesian filters still work well against all the scenarios you point out.
I think my old Tseng ET4000 would have smoked this thing.
Since he likes spam so much, what about sending him some other nice gifts for the holidays, like a Spam coffee mug or a Spam notepad? There are lots of inexpensive items that can be found on www.spamgift.com. Remember, he gives the gift of spam to everyone else. Remember to send a gift to him.
I disagree. Spamming the spammers is one of the best ways to get back at them. Make them feel the pain they bring on us. Taste of their own medicine. Spammers are lowlifes that attempt to hide behind a wall of first-amendment protection. Of course, it's bullshit, but they'll try to get away with it as long as possible. Spammers should experience the annoyance of spam just like everyone else. And it sounds like this guy is getting exactly what he deserves.
You will be missed, Alpha!
Sounds like the condition of the streets where I live.