At 08:18 AM 2003-02-24 -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
>>It's dropping for those people who are using various anti-spam measures,
>>yes.
>
>But it's ignoring the false positive issue of those services, which is
>getting out of hand. And, funny, isn't that where this dance started?
One thing about Bayesian spam filters (I use and contribute to bogofilter,
which has performance as a goal, see http://bogofilter.sourceforge.net) is
that they are typically tunable. I am getting little if any false
positives from bogofilter, like one misclassified spam in the last month. I
have a fairly large personal database and I reclassify all spam that is
misclassified. But that is based on how I have my parameters specified.
I agree, though, it takes a second or two to handle each mail. But,
probably 80% of my spam comes from a couple of places where I am forced to
allow offsite relaying of mail to my site.
--
SPAM: Trademark for spiced, chopped ham manufactured by Hormel.
spam: Unsolicited, Bulk E-mail, where e-mail can be interpreted generally
to mean electronic messages designed to be read by an individual, and it
can include Usenet, SMS, AIM, etc. But if it is not all three of
Unsolicited, Bulk, and E-mail, it simply is not spam. Misusing the term
plays into the hands of the spammers, since it causes confusion, and
spammers thrive on confusion. Spam is not speech, it is an action, like
theft, or vandalism. If you were not confused, would you patronize a spammer?
Nick Simicich - njs@scifi.squawk.com - http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html
Stop by and light up the world!
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
