Rich Kulawiec wrote:
This is one of the many reasons why I largely eschew content-based filters,
Many of us in the biz remember when AOL hit the media for trying to
block porn spam by filtering on the word "breast". One of the highest
FP rates I've _ever_ seen was on the four letter word starting with "f"
(no, it wasn't my idea, but the FP rate gave me the argument to kill the
rule).
and why I try to use them only after all other methods have been tried:
it's very hard to get them right. And it's also one of the reasons why
I think anyone who's using them should be prepared not just for FNs,
but for FPs -- which I believe Chris's operation is, based on what they
return in reject messages.
Serious spam filtering environments have to put a lot more effort into
dealing with FPs than FNs. FNs are forgivable. Unrecoverable FPs are not.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg