New Kind of Spam 'Un-Training' Filters? 454
Zaphod2016 writes to tell us the Wall Street Journal is reporting that email in-boxes are under a new kind of spam attack. This new spam has confused many people due to its lack of advertising, viruses, or request for personal information. One popular theory is that these innocuous blocks of text, often drawn from popular literature, are being used to "un-train" spam filters to allow more malicious spam through in the future.
Other way around? (Score:5, Insightful)
---John Holmes...
I buy the "broken spamware" angle (Score:5, Insightful)
Woe betide literature discussion groups now that filters are trained on the classics.
Re:My uninformed hunch: screwup... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor [wikiquote.org]
Re:specious defillibrator (Score:4, Insightful)
If there wasn't money being made there wouldn't be any spam. At least a tiny percent of the people who get this are acting on them. It must be paying off for someone.
Re:Other way around? (Score:3, Insightful)
Thereby convincing you that it is worthless, causing you to scrap it.
Probably something far less ingeneous. (Score:5, Insightful)
My theory is that there are more people attempting to use spamming applications, and many of these people don't have a clue what they're doing. You'll probably find that they've forgotten to add their text to the e-mails, or are just not reading the documentation on how to successfully send their spam.
We've had this for years (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like any reactive relationship (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Spammers and malicious code writers come up something annoying.
2. Anti-spam and anti-virus software reacts with a method to prevent the annoyance.
3. Spammers and virus writers implment new tactics.
4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 ad infinitum
(The "Proft!" step is probably at 1a and 3b, but that's another issue)
It's not that the spammers are "beating" the spam filters, it's that they are using new tactics and it takes a certain amount of reaction time for the filters to be updated to fight the newly evolved threat. This is why spam filters aren't the ultimate solution to spam, though they are a useful stop-gap
A lot of my spam seems pointless (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Other way around? (Score:3, Insightful)
The spammers will have to move on to i18n, to get their message through.
Re:A lot of my spam seems pointless (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's like any reactive relationship (Score:5, Insightful)
We aren't immortal, so yes.
Just more for your spam filter to do (Score:5, Insightful)
I wanted to just drop anything with a
I wonder if a spam can might be a good idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
Any mail that gets sent to that address would half to be spam. Use that to build of a real time black list of messages and filter training for the rest of the domain.
Just wondered if anyone has ever do that.
Dont read too much (Score:2, Insightful)
Even the professionals coding up Firefox and MS-Office and iMovie are known to have written codes with a few bugs in them. What makes you think these inexplicable non spammy spam is anything more than a hiccup by the script monkeys?
Re:A lot of my spam seems pointless (Score:3, Insightful)
Very stupid people, mostly. There's no shortage.
Re:My uninformed hunch: screwup... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm never understood this. Why attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice? These are spammers. If they can untrain spam-filters, they will. How is picking stupidity over malice in this case a wise decision?
Re:My uninformed hunch: screwup... (Score:2, Insightful)
Sheldon
Re:specious defillibrator (Score:2, Insightful)