ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Asrg] Fwd: Returned mail: see transcript for details

2003-03-31 19:25:18
In <200303312357(_dot_)h2VNvrpd020394(_at_)calcite(_dot_)rhyolite(_dot_)com> 
Vernon Schryver <vjs(_at_)calcite(_dot_)rhyolite(_dot_)com> writes:

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com>

...
And in this particular instance 'by definition' means precisely that, it is
not used for emphasis. The definition of spam may be nebulous but false
positive is not.

It's unfortunate that is mistaken.  "False positive" is not as frequently
abused as "spam," but it is often applied by bulk mail senders to any
filtering of their messages.

Yes, there is some wiggle room about what exactly is a "false
positive", but I think it is somewhat of a red-herring to bring up
spammer's definitions.  Rule #1: Spammers lie.



As others have pointed out, there is a genuine technical ambiguity in
"false positive."  Is it RD/TOTAL or RD/SPAM?

For an example of "wiggle room", I have never consider a false
positive to be some sort of ratio.  It is a property of a piece of
email, just like a bounce or an email with 10 recipients are properties.

What you are asking about is what I would call the "false positive
rate". 



We need clear and concise definitions for [list deleted]

Agreed.  


-wayne

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg