* fleet(_at_)teachout(_dot_)org <fleet(_at_)teachout(_dot_)org> [02-18-03
11:59]:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, Professional Software Engineering wrote:
I don't understand what you're arguing about, or who with.
Sean, I'm not sure I do either.
I think I'm going to bow out of this thread, even though I started it. I
understand what you are saying about degrees of spammishness; but to me it
just doesn't make a lot of (practical) sense.
My arguments are weak; primarily because I have insufficient numbers/data
to back them up. Sooooo - I'm about to embark on a project to collect
those numbers. Each of my recipes will be incrementing a counter. I'll
let the counters collect data for six months, then review publicly.
False positives should be the only thing I have to account for manually.
All messages will go through all recipes and spam hits will be commented
in the message.
This is a false premise. If I set up a spam trap that traps 500
positive spams in a period of time and there are *no* false positives,
I have not necessarily accomplished a reasonable goal. During that
same period of time I may have received 2000 spam posts and I have only
trapped a small percentage.
You must also consider the number of spam posts *not* trapped by your
algorithm, ie: False Negatives. And, you will have to also account for
these manually.
just my thoughts. I usually just sit and watch, although I become
quite frustrated by TOFU and excessive quoting.
--
Patrick Shanahan
http://wahoo.no-ip.org Registered Linux User #207535
icq#173753138 @ http://counter.li.org
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail