ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Asrg] Comments on draft-church-dnsbl-harmful-01.txt

2006-04-03 19:35:34
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Laird Breyer wrote:
On Apr 03 2006, Chris Lewis wrote:

In fact, receiver adjudication would likely _lower_ the FP rate. On
balance, I believe it's more likely that a user doesn't recognize
something he really did ask for (thru some twisty chain of branding,
lowering the FP rate) than "recognize" something he didn't ask for
(raising the FP rate).

That's your judgement talking, not the user. You're saying that you
can't let users full reign because that's like herding cats, it would
mess with your aggregate server statistics and thereby impact the
business. It's a very reasonable position from your point of view.

A guy like Church doesn't accept your point of view because he has
different priorities. I find it hard to agree with you because my
"natural" definition puts the user first. I can see that a clueless
user is well advised to let you make decisions for him, but not
someone who has used mail for a long time.

The user is first.  I simply recognize that a user's accuracy rate on
determining FPs is _lower_ than the automated systems are.

You can't measure a voltage to 6 digits of accuracy if your equipment
only does three.

You can't measure the accuracy of something to .01% if the instrument
you're measuring it with is only 1% accurate.  Further, we'd find a 1%
FP rate on our filtering _totally_ unacceptable (that's 3000+/day). I'd
be looking for another job in another field if it was remotely that bad.

It's not difficult to set a fixed FP rate on a classifier and trade
off FN to achieve it. Every filter can achieve < 0.01% FP. In the
trivial extreme, no filtering at all achieves 0% FP and 100% FN.

But you're no longer testing what you were trying to test, are you?

One way to route around this problem is to use ROC curves, which give a
global picture that doesn't depend on any one person's cost estimates.

ROC - "Return on cost" curves?  Whassat?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows 2000)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQCVAwUBRDHXGZ3FmCyJjHfhAQJKaQP/RJEkc6E8TEvmhTME6AZMksVy28RTMp9g
gkx8hf6b/xo0lIvG98AFFMlrNGyZ6h7SKWS6m0SXIl+xfjcRWaB7hM4eiFhcHQI5
FWssmw+2K51QkRHN0UcfOAnyl+1VlJR5Ds8f5AXw9u//Eo0IAOfsz2cgXoh0E3Rj
zNAXWosVIgU=
=/guW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>