Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

faq:wordsalad [2008/02/08 19:49]
127.0.0.1 external edit
faq:wordsalad [2009/09/26 21:19] (current)
xuesheng Fix the 'simple' results table and the "Also see" link
Line 7: Line 7:
In POPFile everyone's spam and nonspam words are specific to their own email so loading messages with word salad is not effective.  Spammers aren't able to find words that are going to be non-spammy for everyone.  Often simple words that seem non-spammy are actually spammy.  By coincidence, our simple example word is "simple."  It was brought up in discussion of [[Glossary:WordSalad | word salad]] and had widely varying spamminess.  For four out of seven users who checked, it was a good spam indicator. In POPFile everyone's spam and nonspam words are specific to their own email so loading messages with word salad is not effective.  Spammers aren't able to find words that are going to be non-spammy for everyone.  Often simple words that seem non-spammy are actually spammy.  By coincidence, our simple example word is "simple."  It was brought up in discussion of [[Glossary:WordSalad | word salad]] and had widely varying spamminess.  For four out of seven users who checked, it was a good spam indicator.
-|||| **simple**  || +^ User ^ Status of the word 'simple' ^ 
-||Brian || very spammy, 0.82 probability|+| Brian | very spammy, 0.82 probability | 
-||James || low probability|+| James | low probability | 
-||Jeremiah || spammy|+| Jeremiah | spammy | 
-||Jim || spammy|+| Jim | spammy | 
-||Joseph || far higher probability in school mail, 0.64|+| Joseph | far higher probability in school mail, 0.64 | 
-||Robbie || spammy with 0.81 probability|+| Robbie | spammy with 0.81 probability | 
-||Troy || didn't appear at all in any bucket||+| Troy  | didn't appear at all in any bucket |
John indicated that a _random_ (essentially worst-case or "brute force") word-salad attack worked in some small percentage of cases in his [[http://www.jgc.org/SpamConference011604.pps| presentation]] at the 2004 MIT Spam Conference. John indicated that a _random_ (essentially worst-case or "brute force") word-salad attack worked in some small percentage of cases in his [[http://www.jgc.org/SpamConference011604.pps| presentation]] at the 2004 MIT Spam Conference.
Line 20: Line 20:
The main point is that may be a possibility to get a small percentage of messages through to a small percentage of people by using lots of word salad.  But then, how are they going to advertized their enlargment pills?  Its not very effective spam if it doesn't include a URL so that will still be there.  And don't forget email headers also heavily contribute to classification in POPFile. The main point is that may be a possibility to get a small percentage of messages through to a small percentage of people by using lots of word salad.  But then, how are they going to advertized their enlargment pills?  Its not very effective spam if it doesn't include a URL so that will still be there.  And don't forget email headers also heavily contribute to classification in POPFile.
-Also See: +Also See: NewWords
-<code> FAQ/NewWords</code>+
 
faq/wordsalad.txt · Last modified: 2009/09/26 21:19 by xuesheng

Should you find anything in the documentation that is incomplete, unclear, outdated or just plain wrong, please let us know and leave a note in the Documentation Forum.

Recent changes RSS feed Donate Driven by DokuWiki
The content of this wiki is protected by the GNU Fee Documentation License