Comment on What is the point of the Nicole spam?
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days agoAll the evidence we do have demonstrates that the typos evade Bayesian filters and improve deliverability. This is demonstrably true.
When you hear hoof beats think horses not zebras.
Does it however? I’m not up to speed on modern anti spam, but a huge number of spelling mistakes screams spam to me. I would be extremely surprised if it wasn’t the case. The best way to deliver spam is to make it indistinguishable from legit messages.
Also, the existence of spear fishing implies it’s a choice.
a huge number of spelling mistakes screams spam to me
Do you mean to say, you’ve learned to associate spelling errors with spam because most of the spam you see… the spam that gets past your spam filters… has a lot of spelling errors?
The best way to deliver spam is to make it indistinguishable from legit messages.
That’s just not true. The best way to deliver spam is to send it from a reputable address, and to avoid looking like spam.
Bayesian filters need to be trained by a user identifying email as spam. From those emails it learns which words frequently appear in spam emails. Including spelling errors means more unique words rather than words that look like spam.
More than I see very few of them anymore. I see more of them when I look in the junk mail, but even hotmail has gotten good a filtering out all the crap.
Feyd@programming.dev 2 days ago
Provide the evidence?