Why doesn't DCC help against image spam?

Ken A ka at pacific.net
Tue Dec 26 18:19:58 CET 2006

Glenn Steen wrote:
> On 26/12/06, Scott Silva <ssilva at sgvwater.com> wrote:
>> Remco Barendse spake the following on 12/24/2006 7:43 AM:
>> > Now that ORDB is down my mailscanner is not filtering any spam anymore,
>> > i might as well disable it.
>> >
>> > But out of curiosity, why doesn't DCC work for the image spam?
>> >
>> > A checksum should be reasonably effective against the image spam i
>> > think? Assuming that they are not dynamically building each picture a
>> > bit differently for each e-mail that is sent?
>> But that could be what they are doing. Spammers are like cockroaches. 
>> They
>> adapt very quickly, and after they mass-fire their crap, they change 
>> up a bit,
>> and reload for the next salvo.
>> It's war, and we are always on the defense.
> Depressing but true... I think I'll have another Julsnaps... To
> enliven my defenses... (If the snaps fails to do that.... well, at
> least I'll be having more fun...:-)
> Seriously though, I think the only real effective defenses (on my
> sysytems at least) against image-based spam has been a combination of
> the digests (yes, they do take _some_ of it), RFC "strictness" checks
> (in PF) and ImageInfo (and some TVD rules picked up by an sa-update).
> When these fail I'll be going for FuzzyOcr (have just tested this so
> far, but ... it really needs muscle that the production boxes lack).
> Or someone really clever will have found another method:-).

FuzzyOCR runs by default with a low priority (runs as last SA test), so 
it only run when the SA score (so far) is > $X, so set that to your low 
threshold, and FuzzyOCR only runs on spam that hasn't been tagged yet. 
Works quite well, and doesn't take all that much cpu, since > 70% of the 
image spam is caught by the other methods.
Ken A.

> Ceers

More information about the MailScanner mailing list