Matt,
Many thanks for the detailed response. My point was not to hassle you,
specifically, but to carry through with the concern I raised at the S.F.
IETF meeting. Namely, this is an area that has lots of statistics
bandied about, some of which have no objective validity. Even when they
have validity, they can be subject to different, legitimate
interpretations. This is a complicated topic.
So, as a technical forum, we need to seek technical due diligence, if we
are going to have any meaningful basis for evaluating one claim over
another.
MS> Wouldn't it be more sane to ask people to check the archives for that
MS> poster? *sigh*
I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean by this text. I do not
understand the sentence.
In any event, I think that when someone puts a claim forward -- any
claim -- that person carries the burden to make the case for that claim.
Placing the burden on each reader to do any substantial research to
validate the claim, strikes me as inefficient, at best.
MS> This is just spam detected for our customers (about 1.3m users across
Thanks for clarifying that you work for the source of the information.
I probably should have known that, but I didn't, and your From field
address is different.
MS> the globe). So some has got through (about 92-98% accuracy is usual).
MS> Spam is detected by a variety of means, but most spam is detected via
as was noted, the link points to a virus monitor, not a spam monitor.
MS> heuristics (and no I'm not proposing this as a long term solution to
Virus detection that permits labeling the specific virus -- as is done
in the viruseye display -- does not use heuristics. The code does
pattern matching, but not "guessing".
When heuristics DO get used, the obvious requirement is for accompanying
statistics about rates of false positives and false negatives. That is,
confidence levels for the heuistics.
d/
--
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg