Michael Parker wrote:
[snip]
>So, onto the pitfalls:
>
>1) Learning is slower. I tried and tried and tried to speed it up.
> The only other remedy I have is to implement a journal like table
> with no indexes that can be quickly inserted into without checking
> for existing tokens. I have
Marc Perkel wrote:
>Good to see that an idea that I came up with is now considered by Daniel
>to be the "best" spam fighting trick. That being the URI blacklist.
And that will give you a good starting hint on what AccuTechnology does...but
much more...
I also found his other comment goes direct
Sidney Markowitz wrote:
>Again? I stand by the politeness of the one other message I posted in
>reply to your original proposal.
"again" was directed to repeated character attacks from several Committers or
Project Mgmt Committe members.
Thank you for stating you wish you have an amicable relat
I just want to point out that what ever decision you make on Razor, will set a
precedent which you must (in fairness) follow in the future for any equivalent
or better performing services which have a similar license and no other
mitigating issues.
I see many rationalizations for keeping Razor
Part of my previous post did not go through to the list. It follows...
>This mailing list is for developer discussions. Developers consist of
>the people who have commit access to our source control system, SVN.
No where is that stated in public:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/MailingLists
False and slanderous statements persist...
Sidney Markowitz wrote:
>This mailing list is for developer discussions. I could try to explain
>what that means, but I'm afraid that you may not have the awareness of
>personal or social boundaries to be able to use the explanation.
There you go again
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> Shelby Moore wrote:
>You're being exceedingly rude, FYI.
I thought the same of you when you wrote in this thread, that expressing my
opinion was "hijacking" and when you said "again" as if I hijacked any other
thread in this list. That
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 09:41:08PM -0800, Dan Quinlan wrote:
>> Well, we are in C-T-R mode. I thought we had a fairly clear consensus
>> back in 2003 and it was even you that reminded me about it so I assumed
>> you agreed.
>
>I must have come to a different conclusion than
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
>I don't think you quite understand how voting works. For instance, there was
>no vote.
I admit it the policy and procedure for things like this is not very well
explained on your web site, as far as I can see. I searched and searched for
info on "svn" and it is only cl
And I forgot that I also think to be totally consistent, Razor2 plugin should
be listed in the CustomPlugins page and License should state it is "not free
for commercial use", just as I assume will be future case for any future
AccuTechnology plugin.
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 11:33:08PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> belatedly disable Razor2 by default per our policy (service is not free
>> for non-personal use), Razor2 plugin code remains in the tree via
>> grandfathering for now
>> also change Razor2 scores to be
Brook Humphrey wrote:
> Shelby Moore wrote:
>> SpamAssassin may find eventually it needs to have a global Bayesian
>> database to remain competitive (in terms of false negative and false
>> positive error rates) with systems, such as Death2Spam, etc..
>>
>> BTW, I
Malte S. Stretz wrote:
[snip]
> But I must admit that I stopped reading your
>other thread after I read the words "patent", "(tm)"
So you are against trademarks. Okay. So I thus may use your name without your
permission and pretend to be you?
> and "100%
>Accurate"
I did not write that in
e. We only launched in
Dec, so rapid flux. My account is up to 99.7% now.
>Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 16:31:06 +0800
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: Shelby Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Significant evidence of AccuSpam's 98+% FNR
>
>Several
Paul M. Moriarty wrote:
>
>Mr Moore:
>
>To papraphrase from auto racing, code talks & bullshit walks.
To borrow from surfing lingo, "relax dude".
I just wanted to get feedback on the correct way to proceed. That has been
achieved.
>If you're so darned sure that you've invented the greatest thi
Daniel Quinlan wrote:
[snip]
>...SVN commit to follow.
SVN means? Is that a veto (-1) vote commit?
Correction:
Every where I have written "patented" I meant "soon-to-be patent pending".
Please make a mental correction for all instances.
>...You simply license and run the patented system locally...
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
>Shelby Moore wrote:
>>>The privacy issue isn't that the message is being sent over the network
>>>again, but that it is being sent to a third party company.
>>
>> Understood and that is why I said it is a decision (contro
Meant to type "FNR" below:
> Caveat: AccuSpam's (not AccuTechnology) Daily Summary can achieve 0% FPR,
> because the missed spam is sent as summary only.
mouss wrote:
>Shelby Moore wrote:
>>
>> Sorry but that lack of technical detail on our web site about the patent
>is intentional for now.
>>
>
>then why not wait for the patent to be pending/filed before starting a
>discussion?
Because the purpose discussion
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
>Shelby Moore wrote:
>> 4) Privacy is affected because the message is sent over the network again.
> I think this is "strawman", because SMTP network is rarely private any way.
> And none of us control the privacy of the networks we send
Chris Santerre wrote:
[snip]
>>If a service is charging for use, and that is against your
>>license, then I think it MUST be a plugin. Else you will run
>>into perceptions of impartiality.
>
>The devs are about as impartial as it comes. Code works or it doesn't. THey
>go by the numbers. Razor
amassassin/trunk/CREDITS?root=Apache-SVN&view=markup
>On Shelby Moore wrote:
>> Thus, on the one hand, I can argue that our proposal is equivalent to
>Razor, and thus to be fair you either include ours (or you disable Razor...
>but I am not suggesting this).
>
>Th
Daniel Quinlan wrote:
[snip]
>This policy appears to conflict with our policy regarding service costs.
>I'm not sure why we missed it, but this is why SpamCop was originally
>disabled by default (until they changed the "you should donate" policy).
>
>I think we should consider disabling or removi
I would like to modify our proposal based on feedback in this thread, and to
show that the modified proposal will be no different than Razor, except for
Privacy concern. I will also summarize the harmonious resolution of the
Privacy issue.
1) Eliminate AccuTechnology::RequestFreeMessageLicense
First of all the subject of this thread is an incorrect assumption.
AccuTechnology can include an alternative embodiment in an analog circuit.
Marc Perkel wrote:
>I've read your web page and I'm a little confused about what it is you
>hope to patent.
That is intentional.
But you are way off
Note my next post will be a change the proposal to clarify that I was proposing
nothing different than Razor.
Also to try to harmonize (stop the personal attacks) our intentions with the
desires of feedback to us expressed in this thread.
But first I need to rebute the following overtly persona
Daniel Quinlan wrote:
>We only send hashes to Razor, not full messages, and only when users
I am not going to insinuate anything.
I just want to ask a fair question.
Is any one connected with SpamAssassin development (especially those with
voting rights) also have a financial interest in any pr
Sometimes intense discussion calls for a little bit of humor :)
Has anyone ever noticed that truncating "spamassassin" produces "spamass" or
"spamassass"?
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=11097901601&r=1&w=2
Sorry I am a simpleton at heart entertained by stupid fart jokes and other
slapstic
Kenneth Porter wrote:
> Shelby Moore wrote:
>
>>> <http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/ThirdPartySoftware>
>
>> Would you folks be agreeable to adding the following entry to the page,
>> *immediately below* (or above) the "CommercialProducts"
I want to add one more point about who would be advertising who...opposite of
what you expect...
Duncan Findlay wrote:
>By bundling your product with ours, we distribute it to users, but you
>profit.
Actually I think it would end up being the opposite. AccuSpam would end up
advertising and p
Duncan Findlay wrote:
>[This is getting confusing. I didn't realize Shelby also posted this
>(separately) to the dev list. Sorry PMC'ers.]
Apologies my fault, I forgot to cc: the list when I first emailed you my
response, and then later corrected my mistake by sending to list.
Off Topic: It wou
Kenneth Porter wrote:
> Shelby Moore wrote:
>
>> Is there, or are you folks open/closed to adding, a page on the
>> SpamAssassin.org Wiki (with a link from FAQ or download page) which would
>> provide a registry for plugins?
>
><http://wiki.apache.org/spamass
Is there, or are you folks open/closed to adding, a page on the
SpamAssassin.org Wiki (with a link from FAQ or download page) which would
provide a registry for plugins?
In other words, a page where all plugin makers can provide a short description
and link to their web page for the plugin.
Pu
Hi Kenneth,
Kenneth Porter wrote:
>Shelby Moore wrote:
>
>> For example, we may want to combine the Bayesian and AccuTechnology
>> outputs in a special logic, other than a straight weighted calculation.
>
>This is the only thing that looks like it goes beyond the capab
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Mind you, I don't have a vote in this (Other than a user of SA, and
>sometimes contributor to this list), but since these emails have been
>gracing my inbox all day I thought I would chime in.
Your vote counts with me. I am tallying the posts to this thread.
>Some exc
Daniel Quinlan wrote:
>Shelby Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Sorry but I do not see the open-source distinction between a Razor
>> (and others) API and the proposed AccuTechnology API?
>
>We only send hashes to Razor, not full messages, and only when users
Hi Duncan,
below...
Duncan Findlay wrote:
>My reasons are much more philosophical. I don't see the advantage to
>our users of including a module that is not very useful to them unless
>they pay you for a license.
That is NOT exactly what I proposed in my seminal post to create this thread.
If
Hi Dan,
Thanks for your feedback.
Daniel Quinlan wrote:
[snip]
>I will add that I'm much more interested in contributions that are
>free-and-clear open source, not unnecessarily hidden behind some API.
>We've chosen to focus on technologies that are 100% free or 100% open
>source. Some use prop
lugin to support yet another service like
>Razor and DCC, especially if you can demonstrate better results.
I am confident we are already demonstrating much better results than Razor and
DCC and with only 230 user sample!
Imagine what happens when we scale to their usership!
Thanks for the support with your reservations.
Best Regards,
Shelby Moore III
I am knowledgeable), and hoping to get
advice along the way from experienced SA developers (in areas where I am not
knowledgeable).
My name is Shelby Moore, and I am the inventor of AccuTechnology(tm), a new
statistical method for anti-spam, as summarized non-technically here:
http
41 matches
Mail list logo
