Bayesian spam channels are substance based channels particularly prepared to perceive the individual email client's spam and great mail, making them exceptionally powerful and troublesome for spammers to adjust to.
These inventive channels ascertain the likelihood of a message being spam in light of its substance. Dissimilar to straightforward substance based channels, Bayesian spam separating gains from spam and from great mail, bringing about an extremely vigorous, adaptable, and productive hostile to spam approach that, best of all, scarcely gives back any false positives.
Bayesian Spam Filters
Those of us plagued by the onslaught of tens—if not hundreds—of unwanted emails greeting us as we open up our email accounts have some hope for respite in the form of Bayesian spam filters. For years, spammers have been able to remain one step ahead of spam blockers simply because of their creativity and ability to adjust and evade blocking each time a new spam filter was developed.
As a result, anti-spam software developers were certain of the task before them: to develop software that could continually learn from the new and creative techniques of spammers, and as a result never fall behind in the spam blocking game. Think about how you detect spam. A quick glance is often enough. You know what spam looks like, and you know what good mail looks like. The probability of spam looking like good mail is around... zero.
The SecPoint® Protector (https://www.secpoint.com/protector.html) comes fully loaded with this feature to give the customers the best anti-spam solution.
Scoring Content-Based Filters Do Not Adapt
Wouldn't it be great if automatic spam filters worked like that too?
The scoring filters approach works, but it also has several problems. The list of characteristics is built from the spam (and the good mail) the filter maker gets. To get a good grasp of the typical spam anybody might get, mail must be collected at hundreds of email addresses. This weakens the efficiency of the filters, especially because the characteristics of good mail will be different for each person, but this is not taken into account.
The characteristics to look for are more or less set in stone. If the spammers make the effort to adapt (and make their spam look like good mail to the filters), the filtering characteristics have to be tweaked manually, which is an even bigger effort.
The score assigned to each word is probably based on a good estimate, but it is still arbitrary. And like the list of characteristics, it neither adapts to the changing world of spam in general nor to an individual user's needs
The attributes of a Bayesian spam channel can be the words in the group of the message and its headers (senders and message ways). It can likewise be different perspectives, for example, HTML code (like hues) or even word matches, phrases, and meta data (where a specific expression shows up).
On the off chance that a word—"Cartesian", for instance never shows up in spam yet regularly in your real mail, the likelihood of "Cartesian" showing spam is close to zero. "Toner", then again, shows up only, and regularly, in spam. "Toner" has a high likelihood of being found in spam, very little beneath 1 (100%
When a new message arrives, it is analyzed by the Bayesian spam filter, and the probability of the complete message being spam is calculated using the individual characteristics. Let's say a message contains both "Cartesian" and "toner". From these words alone, it's not yet clear whether we have spam or legit mail. But other characteristics will (most probably) indicate a probability that allows the filter to classify the message as either spam or good mail.
Bayesian Spam Filters Can Adapt Automatically
Now that we have a classification, the message can be used to train the filter further. In this case, either the probability of "Cartesian" indicating good mail is lowered (if the message containing both "Cartesian" and "toner" is found to be spam), or the probability of "toner" indicating spam must be reconsidered.
Using this auto-adaptive technique, Bayesian filters can learn from both their own and the user's decisions (if he manually corrects a misjudgment by the filters). The adaptability of Bayesian filtering also makes sure they are most effective for the individual email user. While most people's spam may have similar characteristics, the legitimate mail is characteristically different for everybody.
How Can Spammers Get Past Bayesian Filters?
The characteristics of legitimate mail are just as important for the Bayesian spam filtering process as the spam is. If the filters are trained specifically for every user, spammers will have an even harder time working around everybody's or even most people's spam filters, and the filters can adapt to almost everything spammers try.
Spammers will only make it past well-trained Bayesian filters if they make their spam messages look perfectly like the ordinary email everybody may get. They could do that today too. Spammers do not usually send such ordinary emails, I presume, because they don't work. So chances are they won't be doing it when ordinary, boring emails are the only way to make it past the anti-spam filters.
Most Kind of Spam
However, if spammers do switch to mostly normal-looking emails, we will then see a lot of spam in our inbox again, and email may become as frustrating as it was in pre-Bayesian days (or even worse). It will also ruin the market for most kinds of spam, though, and thus won't last for long.
One exception can be formulated by spammers in order to work their way through Bayesian filters even with their usual content. It's in the nature of Bayesian statistics that one word that very frequently appears in good mail can be so significant as to turn any message from looking like spam to being rated as good mail by the filter.
If spammers find a way to determine your surefire good-mail words—by using HTML return receipts to see which messages you opened, for example—they can include one of them in a junk mail and reach you even through a well-trained Bayesian filter.