Anyone using FuzzyOCR?

[Ken]

We are using both ImageInfo and Fuzzyocr at the moment. Fuzzyocr does 
use quite a bit of resources, running gocr multiple times on each image, 
but it does work well and it does stop the image spam, though I don't 
much like feeding images to complex executables for obvious reasons... 
Also, much of the current image spam I'm seeing is designed to evade 
ocr, so it's getting very difficult to match, even with Fuzzyocr, and 
probably partly because of Fuzzyocr. ImageInfo is good too, and hits a 
lot of spam. The default scoring seems a bit high, but that's easy 
enough to change. There has been a significant increase in image spam 
since last week, so this is a hot topic!
Ken A
Pacific.Net


Chris Sweeney wrote:
> The only reason I haven't tried Imageinfo is, if I understand how it
> works it seems it would cause alot of false positives if you have people
> sending pictures in the email.  People sharing pictures might not like
> this.  I would really like to find a good fix as the amount of image
> SPAM getting in now, its getting very bad.
>
>
> Julian Field wrote:
>   
>> 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
>>
>>     
>
>