Why doesn't DCC help against image spam?

[Ken A]

Scott Silva wrote:
> Glenn Steen spake the following on 12/26/2006 8:58 AM:
>> 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:-).
>>
>> Ceers
> Since I have to work, have a Julsnaps for me!
> 

"What's in a Julsnaps?", said the curious fellow in California?
I can't have one unless I know how to make it!
:-)
Ken A
Pacific.Net