Adrian Midgley wrote:
What is amazing is how quickly people can do it though, isn't it. We only need to look further than the subject in maybe 10% of messages that make it through the Bayesian filter and other protections, and even when we do it takes only moments.
As opposed to Dave's 500 a second ?!
Nah we are only good at spotting the obvious spams, the computers do that much quicker anyway. I suspect we are only doing better as the spam filters tend to ignore what they don't understand, where as we count some of it against it. For example quite a lot of the spam getting past spam assassin deliberately misspells all the obvious keywords - well I spot "Vaigra" and hit delete. Since quick and effective spell checking tools exist, I dare say this is a class of spam we could kill if anyone cared enough to code it. The Wetware is also more expensive and harder to fix when it malfunctions ;) On the upside you don't need to program it after the first 16 years or so, unless you want it to be a doctor or perform some other specialist task.
So to solve the spam problem, first, solve the AI Problem.
Nope you can pretty much solve the spam problem today by checking the sender is known to you it's crude but even OE gives you a button to do it. Unfortunately even this is flawed as demonstrated by all the viruses I receive apparently from Stuart Cracraft whose email address I whitelist for obvious reasons. Now if I could just get everyone to sign their emails....
Description: OpenPGP digital signature