Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Frank Solensky <fsolensky(_at_)PREMONITIA(_dot_)COM> writes:
Just posted on slashdot: a Bayesian approach to the problem that reports
to have rates of 0.5% on false positives and 0% false negative:
http://www.paulgraham.com/spam.html
The problem is that, naturally, the spammers will start running the
tool over their spam before sending it and tweaking it until it
passes. This has happened for previous techniques.
That would be less somewhat useful in this case, though, since each user
has their own table of keywords.
--
/===========================================\
|John Stracke |jstracke(_at_)centivinc(_dot_)com |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centivinc.com|
|Centiv |My opinions are my own. |
|===========================================|
|"Who died and made you king?" "My father." |
\===========================================/