[Spambayes] Latest spammer trick stymied
Tim Stone - Four Stones Expressions
tim at fourstonesExpressions.com
Mon Mar 31 16:05:23 EST 2003
3/31/2003 3:46:36 PM, Skip Montanaro <skip at pobox.com> wrote:
> >> We definitely should NOT crawl the site, just in case it really is an
> >> innocent url. The load can crush a site, particularly if it's
> >> hosted.
> Richard> Nah. You need to throw thousands of requests at a half-decent
> Richard> web server before it gives up the ghost. And if they're sending
> Richard> out 10 million mail pieces, they should expect their http
> Richard> server to take some load. These are definitely NOT innocent
> Richard> emails. They come from bogus senders, have minimal headers
> Richard> (deliberately), and contain *nothing* but a url. Which points,
> Richard> via redirect naturally, to an incest porn or get-a-huge-penis
> Richard> site, etc.
>You can't make that judgement beforehand. If the site you are poking is a
>valid site and the email received was not spam, none of what you said holds.
>If I remember correctly, you said this was only to be performed in
>circumstances where certain criteria were met, none of which included a
>conclusion the mail was spam.
That's right. We really should try to solve this problem with tokenization.
c'est moi - TimS
There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary,
and those who don't.
More information about the Spambayes