Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-spamassassin-users-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-spamassassin-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 94BF16C41 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 07:03:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 69880 invoked by uid 500); 21 Jul 2011 07:03:56 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-spamassassin-users-archive@spamassassin.apache.org Received: (qmail 69527 invoked by uid 500); 21 Jul 2011 07:03:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@spamassassin.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list users@spamassassin.apache.org Received: (qmail 69504 invoked by uid 99); 21 Jul 2011 07:03:37 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 07:03:37 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of axb.lists@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.178 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.82.178] (HELO mail-wy0-f178.google.com) (74.125.82.178) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 07:03:29 +0000 Received: by wyf19 with SMTP id 19so755669wyf.37 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 00:03:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZlQ4FgI/knb74Y5/pZSJOUCuGbOU3TkkulteEHaNH1o=; b=sQTCDgZZAsN/xNVecenax0dsoa/zxjG1n2udjxvYGShpCy+siMbkvAVYpQeYYUgzTf vjMnBs7wUDDuOTP0EtzvreIN+enyCU/ePJmHEKEQMbtJRusyunhbg1AHJTIqkt0z/77L XOAvZ7IO4P+gsn1zPg5G9IeFYLWSgu94mM2Vk= Received: by 10.227.198.10 with SMTP id em10mr8432188wbb.108.1311231787806; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 00:03:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.192.3] (62-2-216-82.static.cablecom.ch [62.2.216.82]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p14sm791109wbh.47.2011.07.21.00.03.05 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 21 Jul 2011 00:03:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E27CF26.4000305@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:03:02 +0200 From: Axb User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: Suggest OCR plugin on Spamassassin 3.3.1 for image spam References: <3439D88AC8B9534AB0C26F8CA8F055C66D6AD0BF27@GVW1154EXB.americas.hpqcorp.net> <20110721011848.GH16702@chaosreigns.com> <4E278FBF.5070307@i6ix.com> <3439D88AC8B9534AB0C26F8CA8F055C66D6AD0C1B6@GVW1154EXB.americas.hpqcorp.net> In-Reply-To: <3439D88AC8B9534AB0C26F8CA8F055C66D6AD0C1B6@GVW1154EXB.americas.hpqcorp.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/UnmaintainedCustomPlugins "OCR scanner and image validator SA-plugin" "OCR Plugin" may be worth a try.. no idea how well they work The Spamassassin wiki is so cool On 2011-07-21 8:53, Sharma, Ashish wrote: > All, > > The current functionality requires me to receive mails that contains image and process them. > > So I want a good tool to deal with image spam. > > Please suggest some. > > Thanks > Ashish Sharma > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Bertoch [mailto:jason@i6ix.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 8:03 AM > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Re: Suggest OCR plugin on Spamassassin 3.3.1 for image spam > > On 7/20/2011 9:18 PM, darxus@chaosreigns.com wrote: >> On 07/20, Sharma, Ashish wrote: >>> Can someone suggest some better OCR plugin for Spamassassin 3.3.1 for image spam? >> It still seems strange to me that anybody has ever bothered with using OCR >> to deal with image spam, when it's so easy, and for me not problematic, to >> just block all emails that might be image spam - those with an attached >> image that is embedded in the body of an html mail. >> >> Inlined attached images are not a feature that I find anywhere near worth >> having enough to justify needing to OCR image spam. >> > > Image spam was a huge deal when it first came out, and there were > several sources scrambling to offer a solution, including resources to > involve Bayes on the decoded text. Those worked well enough to deter, > for the time-being anyway, that method of spamming. > > That said, while I agree with your sentiment toward inline images and > HTML mail in general, they are a common business practice and many folks > simply can't use the outright block method. > > At my last job, I eventually found that image-spam dropped to such a > significant low that I didn't need OCR anymore but was still required to > allow inline images through. > > /Jason