Cmabrigde Uinervtisy rscheearch uesd to baysps sapm ftilres

Looks like the "Cmabrigde Uinervtisy rscheearch" is now being used by spammers to bypass spam-filters. I just received the email below in my hotmail account:

Doplima Pgorram

Cteare a mroe prosperous future for yoersulf

Reiecve a flul dmploia from non adcrecited univirsitees based upon yuor real life excerienpe

You wlil not be tested, or intervieewd Riceeve a Masetr's, Bacholer's or Doctotare

Clal 24 hruos a day 7 dyas a week

Isn't it interesting how - of all subject matters - they had to choose education first to use this trick on?

TrackBack URL for this entry:

What frightens me most is that it's almost a challenge to read these encoded mails.

Posted by Bernard Vander Beken at October 1, 2003 5:30 AM
public virtual MemoryStream: Cmabrigde Uinervtisy rscheearch uesd to baysps sapm ftilres...

Trackback from Link Sideblog at October 1, 2003 8:17 AM

The funny thing is that, after I read *your* original posting on "Cmabrigde Uinervtisy rscheearch" which was about the forth blog that I had seen mention it, I had the same idea and thought that it would be much more efficient way of getting around the Bayesian filters than by adding pure garbage words to spams to fool the filter.

The idea was so scary that I decided not to mention it lest a spammer see it and go ahead and do it...

Posted by Stuart Woodward at October 1, 2003 10:12 AM

Hmm. This could likely be defeated by having Bayesian (and other) filters alphabetically sort the 2nd through n-1 letter in each word, but I wonder how much it might drop the accuracy of the filter due to collisions between ham words and spam words that sort to the same letter sequence.

I can't imagine it would be that much of a drop, though, and the community may just be forced to consider it if spammers really pick up on this technique.

Posted by Jeremy Gray at October 1, 2003 10:29 AM

Not so sure it is scary. Google already decodes this kind of text.
Try it

Posted by Fabrice at October 1, 2003 3:09 PM

Actually, I don't think spammers will use this technique, cause they still want to achieve something with their spam, and you can be sure that _everybody_ deletes such a mail... and with those last few dickheads not deleting it, you cannot even cover the cost for sending all this crap :)
So long,

Posted by Obeliks at October 1, 2003 4:58 PM

RSS Aggregators

Trackback from Alan Dean at October 1, 2003 5:57 PM

SPAMing is prevasive because it is SUCH CHEAP, almost free, advertising. It just strikes me that one simple idea will effectively shut down most of the SPAMMERs. Charge $0.01 for each email sent. I'd pay that as it might cost me a few dollars a month. The SPAMMERs on the other hand would be charged much more for the thousands of emails they spew. I know that there are ways around this by faking the method of sending it...but that hole is being rapidly plugged for good security reasons.

Posted by john at October 28, 2003 11:55 AM

While the theory of charging a penny per email is great, the practical implementation of it won't be - how do we force someone to pay for email prior to sending it? Who will collect the charges and who will they go to? (the recipient? the collection agency?). Charging for email would take a complete overhaul of the current email-system. The chances of getting such an overhaul implemented and accepted on a worldwide scale are zero to none IMHO.

Posted by Luke Hutteman at October 28, 2003 1:12 PM


Trackback from Le Zephyr at November 8, 2003 1:36 AM
This discussion has been closed. If you wish to contact me about this post, you can do so by email.