[LINK] Minister warned on porn filters

[Roger Clarke]

>On 01/01/2008, at 9:13 PM, Kim Holburn wrote:
>>  Believe me you all want the spam filters in place, you really 
>>really do.  The false positives are a bitch though.

At 21:32 +1100 1/1/08, Ivan Trundle wrote:
>I disagree. A poor spam filter is worse than none at all.  ...
>The filter that I choose to use is intelligent enough to work this out.

My local supplier, Apex, implemented a service a few years ago (at 
least as long ago as the beginning of 2006.  I'd have to dig into 
archives to find out the actual start-date).

I request that everything be passed through, but flagged in the 
Subject: header.  I've yet to detect a false-positive.  (I used to 
examine the headers assiduously, but after a long while with not a 
single instance detected, you can't keep the enthusiasm up).

It doesn't seem to declare in the message which service it is. 
Rather unsporting, what?

The most recent entry in the box is below:

From: Brenda <sca1993 at wg.com>
To: roger.clarke at xamax.com.au
Subject: *** POSSIBLE SPAM *** Why you do not write?
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 11:41:55 +0200

Spam detection software, running on the system "arnold.apex.net.au", has
identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
the administrator of that system for details.

Content preview:  You remember m?e Id o! Here my page jiapesrjj:
   http://du-iai.nm.ru [...]

Content analysis details:   (9.5 points, 6.0 required)

  pts rule name              description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  0.1 FORGED_RCVD_HELO       Received: contains a forged HELO
  3.5 BAYES_99               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100%
                             [score: 1.0000]
  2.0 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL      RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address
                             [41.243.15.171 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net]
  0.0 RCVD_IN_PBL            RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL
                             [41.243.15.171 listed in zen.spamhaus.org]
  1.6 URIBL_SBL              Contains an URL listed in the SBL blocklist
                             [URIs: nm.ru]
  2.2 INVALID_MSGID          Message-Id is not valid, according to RFC 2822

Return-Path: <sca1993 at wg.com>
X-Original-To: roger.clarke at xamax.com.au
Delivered-To: rclarke at apex.net.au
Received: from wg.com (dsl-243-15-171.telkomadsl.co.za [41.243.15.171])
	by mail.apex.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E73A3B00C4
	for <roger.clarke at xamax.com.au>; Tue,  1 Jan 2008 20:41:54 +1100 (EST)
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 11:41:55 +0200
From: Brenda <sca1993 at wg.com>
X-Mailer: pdef 7.61
Reply-To: sca1993 at wg.com
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: 1782695492.3776828078 at wg.com
To: roger.clarke at xamax.com.au
Subject: Why you do not write?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

You remember m?e Id o! Here my page jiapesrjj: http://du-iai.nm.ru


-- 
Roger Clarke                  http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/

Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd      78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
                    Tel: +61 2 6288 1472, and 6288 6916
mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au                http://www.xamax.com.au/

Visiting Professor in Info Science & Eng  Australian National University
Visiting Professor in the eCommerce Program      University of Hong Kong
Visiting Professor in the Cyberspace Law & Policy Centre      Uni of NSW