Re: [LUG] Spam and fog

[Simon Waters <Simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Adrian Midgley wrote:
> I had the idea that passing the body of emails through the style and diction 
> tools from the writers' workbench and rejecting those that had high GUnning 
> Fog indexes or other indications of bad style etc might screen out those that 
> have a text part composed of a meaningless stream of random and otherwise 
> interesting non-spammy words.

Wrong approach to spam if you ask me - your still assuming spam looks
different - but not all of it does - and not everything that looks like
spam is spam.

> Rejecting any mail that triggers that report would have lost me one genuine 
> mail this week.  (from ee cummings - not really)

Ah but the problem with filters is no one would know it is dropped,
unless you've stuck this in hooks before the SMTP transaction is
completed (I believe Postfix has some hooks not sure about the other
MTA's), or issue a bounce for each failure.

Beside my grammar and spelling take a dive with my medical state - so I
hope you don't get too keen on the idea.

Have you tried TMDA yet?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature