Its like steganalysis. Its an arms race between measuring your own signatures vs. what the Adversary can measure. If sentence length is a metric known to you, you can write filters that warn you. Similarly for the Adversary. You end up in an arms race over metrics ---who has the more sensitive ones that the other does not control for?
But unlike stego, where the issue is faking the noise, personal fingerprints can be removed from the message more reliably. You just need the right gloves. One way is to use automated translators. They all have an "internal language" and modules that translate to and from it. The internal language is far more restricted than the natural one, so it doesn't leak many aspects of the linguistic fingerprint. Going to the internal form is "lossy" compression. There is no way to recreate the original. The simplest method is an englih-to-english translator. Better method, and thicker gloves, can be used by going through several from/to modules for different languages. In commercial engines the meaning starts to suffer after 3-4 steps but just before that happens the word ordering and use gets completely skewed. Of course, you have to buy the translator and not use the online google/babelfish access. It's the small things that get you ... ===== end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/