Mike Wendland Interviewed bragging spam king Alan Ralsky for the Detriot Free Press. The article got Slashdotted, and then someone on the discussion list got the idea to spam back. (I can’t find the exact thread, but would love to link to it from here.)
Now the Spam King is complaining that…well…that it really sucks to be spammed.
This is a stretch on “spam tech” — more like good old fashioned grass roots organizing in action, but I think it’s interesting that Ralsky doesn’t seem to grasp the irony of the situation.

“They’ve signed me up for every advertising campaign and mailing list there is,” he told me. “These people are out of their minds. They’re harassing me.”
That they are. Gleefully. Almost 300 anti-Ralsky posts were made on the Slashdot.org Web site, where the plan was hatched after spam haters posted his address, even an aerial view of his neighborhood.
“Several tons of snail mail spam every day might just annoy him as much as his spam annoys me,” wrote one of the anti-spammers.
Ralsky is indeed annoyed. He says he’s asked Bloomfield Hills attorney Robert Harrison to sue the anti-spammers.

Continue reading →

By David Mertz, Ph.D., for IBM DeveloperWorks:
Six approaches to eliminating unwanted e-mail
(Thanks, Cory.)

For purposes of my testing, I developed two collections of messages: spam and legitimate. Both collections were taken from mail I actually received in the last couple of months, but I added a significant subset of messages up to several years old to broaden the test. I cannot know exactly what will be contained in next month’s e-mails, but the past provides the best clue to what the future holds. That sounds cryptic, but all I mean is that I do not want to limit the patterns to a few words, phrases, regular expressions, etc. that might characterize the very latest e-mails but fail to generalize to the two types.
In addition to the collections of e-mail, I developed training message sets for those tools that “learn” about spam and non-spam messages. The training sets are both larger and partially disjoint from the testing collections. The testing collections consist of slightly fewer than 2000 spam messages, and about the same number of good messages. The training sets are about twice as large.
A general comment on testing is worth emphasizing. False negatives in spam filters just mean that some unwanted messages make it to your inbox. Not a good thing, but not horrible in itself. False positives are cases where legitimate messages are misidentified as spam. This can potentially be very bad, as some legitimate messages are important, even urgent, in nature, and even those that are merely conversational are ones we do not want to lose. Most filtering software allows you to save rejected messages in temporary folders pending review — but if you need to review a folder full of spam, the usefulness of the software is thereby reduced.

Continue reading →

If this isn’t a sure sign of desperation, I don’t know what is.
(Also, this year’s rash of cyber-haiku is officially being taken a little too far, don’t cha think?)
See the story by Michelle Delio for Wired News:
Haiku’da Been a Spam Filter.