From: Clifton Royston <cliftonr(_at_)lava(_dot_)net>
...
This does not take into account the differential cost of false
positives and false negatives; I do want to look at the Androutsopoulos
paper for this TCR measure. However, I think it is potentially useful.
...
Because the differential costs of false positives and negatives differ
by orders of magnitude, any spam defense metric that consists of a
single number will have very limited utility. Some people value not
receiving spam 100 times more than not receiving legitimate mail and
so are happy with 10% false positive rates. Other organizatiosn will
not tolerate 0.1% false positive rates no matter how many clerks must
be hired to manually filter spam. A metric that says one system has
a value of 10 and second has a value of 100 cannot tell you which
system (if either) is usable, not mention which is better according
to your lights.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg