On Wednesday, 27. May 2009 19:53:01 Evan Daniel wrote: > I have only very rarely had any difficulty determining whether a > message was spam or not. Why would this be any different? > > Of course Advogato gives you the same ability, that is the entire > point. The precise algorithm is different, but the problem it tries > to solve is the same. The one difference is that Advogato is not > about determining that person X is a spammer, it's about determining > that person X *isn't* a spammer. From a user's standpoint, the two > questions are precisely identical, but at an algorithm level they're > not.
Is there a reason for assigning trust to persons instead of assigning trust to messages? You could have two options: "mark as spam" and "reply/no spam", where replying implies that the message was seen as valid. Then you compare your list of message ratings with the lists of others. To find out if you should trust an unknown message, you check the correltation your trust-list has with the trust-list of people who rated the message. If you have a strong positive correlation, you use their rating, If you have a strong negative correlation, you use their rating inverted. (the idea is taken from http://credence-p2p.org) That way rating is no longer about finding spammers, but about finding spam- posts. Best wishes, Arne --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - singing a part of the history of free software - http://infinite-hands.draketo.de -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090528/c5bca28a/attachment.pgp>
