On 5/16/04 1:51 PM, "Entourage:mac Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Instead, MS plan to update the filter from time to time. They're using >> the same Junk filter engines as Outlook, MSN and other MS programs - >> which gives them a HUGE sample to practice on �and learn from - much >> more than you could ever do with your own little Bayesian checker. > > Personal Bayesian filters don't need a huge sample of messages. They > achieve their high accuracy because they learn from the actual mail > that *you* receive. Training my filter with other people's mail would > probably reduce its effectiveness. Anymore, I just don't see the point in training. Why am I doing this work? Click,click...meh. Yes, I do have a think about doing manual, repetitive work on a computer. It's antithetical as to why we have them. Besides, in the end, spammers can buy Bayesian filters and beat on various implementations until they find a way around them. It's a fact, and a simple one that will doom every attempt to directly filter spam. Filter everything that is not spam, and your entire spam related activities can be handled in abou five minutes a day. john -- "95% of everyone you meet will be a moron. This is usually proven by looking in the mirror each morning." John C. Welch -- To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.letterrip.com/> old-archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
