bugtraq - Re: Is predictable spam filtering a vulnerability?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <200406240719.i5O7JEIO025076@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 03:19:14 -0400
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: Luca Berra <bluca@...edia.it>
Cc: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: Is predictable spam filtering a vulnerability?

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 15:52:00 +0200, Luca Berra <bluca@...edia.it>  said:

> I hold that after suitable training of the spam filter (this includes
> generation of whitelists and such), dropping mail into oblivion is
> perfectly safe.

Assume a spam filter that's 99.8% accurate.  This is probably a *high*
estimate - we're talking only 2 errors per every thousand mails...

Assume several million messages a day (which is *not* a very large load
by today's standards - we're merely a large university, and even *after*
subtracting spam and virus mail, we're in that range)...

Calculate how many mails get dropped into oblivion each day.

I suspect that you and I have differing definitions of "*perfectly* safe".....

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped