Anyone using FuzzyOCR?

[Rose, Bobby]

FuzzyOCR doesn't care about pictures, only text.  It's scanning the
image for text and then fuzzyocr will then regex the text to see if any
of the words match those that you have fuzzyocr configured to look for.
The more words then the greater the score.  So unless they are putting
words in their picures fuzzyocr won't care.
 
Imageinfo might cause you problems but it does consist of various tests
and you can always disable those that give you problems like the single
image of such and such size.  The layering tests are still good.  That
is where the spammer has multiple images and uses html formatting to
piece the individual images together to form a bigger picture.
 
 

________________________________

From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info
[mailto:mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf Of Chris
Sweeney
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 2:00 PM
To: MailScanner discussion
Subject: Re: Anyone using FuzzyOCR?


I want to use some sort of filtering for image spam as it keeps getting
worse and worse, but I host email for alot of realtor's and they do alot
of emailing of pictures for BPO's clients, etc.  I am concerned that
these will get scored too high and get blocked.  What is your take on
that?

Thanks

Rose, Bobby wrote:
> I've been using it for a while now and it hasn't been that bad.  Note
> that it's configured to have a low SA priority so it's the last plugin
> called and also to be skipped if the message already has a sufficient
> spamscore.  The default is 10 but I changed it to 8 in the cf so that
it
> matched my MailScanner configs.  It has been good at catching those
> animated spam gifs.
>
> I also use imageinfo but has does lead to many false positives so I
had
> to lower the scores on it.  Imageinfo is good for the layered images
> spams since you will hardly find regular email uses doing that.  
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info
> [mailto:mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf Of
Julian
> Field
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 4:38 PM
> To: MailScanner discussion
> Subject: Re: Anyone using FuzzyOCR?
>


	I have spoken to other people who have tried FuzzyOCR and have
found
	Imageinfo much more useful. FuzzyOCR is reckoned to be very high
on
	resources and very slow, of the order of several seconds per
message. 
	The opinion from other people I have spoken to seems to be that
it is
	not worth it.
	
	But that's my opinion, Gary.... (along with Steve Freegard of
MailWatch
	fame and Anthony of milter.org fame).
	
	Pentland G. wrote:
	>> All,
	>>
	>> I'm trialling FuzzyOCR and having mixed results.
	>>
	>> Are any of you using this and what have you found?  Good and
bad, I'm 
	>> interested.
	>>
	>> Thanks,
	>>
	>> Gary
	>>
	>>
	>>   
	
	Jules
	
	--
	Julian Field
	www.MailScanner.info
	Buy the MailScanner book at www.MailScanner.info/store
	
	MailScanner customisation, or any advanced system administration
help?
	Contact me at Jules at Jules.FM
	
	PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654
For all
	your IT requirements visit www.transtec.co.uk
	
	
	
	--
	This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content
by
	MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
	For all your IT requirements visit www.transtec.co.uk
	
	--
	MailScanner mailing list
	mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
	http://lists.mailscanner.info/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner
	
	Before posting, read http://wiki.mailscanner.info/posting
	
	Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website! 
	
	--
	MailScanner mailing list
	mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
	http://lists.mailscanner.info/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner
	
	Before posting, read http://wiki.mailscanner.info/posting
	
	Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website!
	
	


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20061015/18536854/attachment.html