[SURBL-Discuss] RFC: Adding SpamBouncer phishing data
schampeo at hesketh.com
Tue Aug 2 21:35:12 CEST 2005
on Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 11:33:39AM -0700, List Mail User wrote:
> I'm not a procmail user and nearly all your expressions look good
> except a few. If you have any users into genealogy the next~of~kin pair
> may give you problems; I get mail like this from family members who are
> "into" that sort of thing.
Thanks for the heads up; I've not seen any FPs on these yet, and I only
use it to quarantine, not reject, so it's not that big a deal.
> Also, my accountants will sometimes send me emails with
> urgent_response and/or urgent_reply in them.
> All the rest seem to match what I have seen in 419s only - a really
> good list overall.
Thanks. IIRC, I based it on some work by Bruce Gingery, so I can't take
all the credit. I've got some 2400 or so samples to run more cogent
analyses on, some day. It works a hell of a lot better than the old
filters I had built into sendmail, which tested Subject: and From: -
but one day I'll go back to those, as I'm /really/ getting tired of
suffering these fools. One of my users gets about fifty a day. :/
Fortunately, most of them are rejected.
> (BTW. Bayes is good at catching these too. How often does an American
> even see or hear the word "barrister"? Ouside of the Commonwealth or old
> Commonwealth countries, I doubt the work gets any use except on PBS; And
> who *really* wants to hear from a lawyer anyway:-))
Heh. Depends on if you're the one accused of something :)
hesketh.com/inc. v: +1(919)834-2552 f: +1(919)834-2554 w: http://hesketh.com
antispam news, solutions for sendmail, exim, postfix: http://enemieslist.com/
More information about the Discuss