On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 20:52:17 +0100, "Giampaolo Tomassoni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From: Dan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> I've developed a new approach to scoring that I want to 1) share with >> everyone and 2) make into a working system thats as accurate as what >> I've already built, but easier to use. First, the theory: >> >> >> >> SITUATION >> In the beginning, all email was ham. When spam came along, we left >> the ham alone and targeted the annoyance (spam). >> >> ASSUMPTION >> All messages are ham unless x,y,z score says they're spam. >> >> APPROACH >> Block nothing, then create rules to catch what you don't want. ie, >> build tests that target the spam, then score the millions of ways >> spam can occur. >> >> RESULT >> Huge time spent tuning and retuning weights, catching everything in >> sight (including much ham). >> >> >> >> NEW SITUATION >> Ham is now the tiniest minority of all email. >> >> NEW ASSUMPTION >> All messages are spam unless x,y,z score says they're ham. >> >> NEW APPROACH >> Block everything, then create rules to not catch what you do want. >> ie, build tests that target the spam (keeping all the tests you've >> already built), then score the thousands of ways ham triggers on >> those tests. >> >> NEW RESULT >> Spend less time and energy while catching more of what you do want >> and less of what you don't. >> >> >> >> CHALLENGE >> All filtering software is written to score for results that equal >> spam -> catch the bad >> >> SOLUTION >> Make filtering software score for results that equal ham -> uncatch >> the good. >> >> >> Your thoughts? > >How can this method "spend less time and energy"? Aren't you going to build a >"mirrored" method with respect to the actual one? Your rules wouldn't be like >the actual ones, but negated? > >Giampaolo > >> >> Dan >> >> >> BTW, is there a better forum for this level of question? >> Dan has a good point; on the surface at least. spam now accounts for 80%+ of all mail, so why are we concentrating on that? At least the point is worth debate (IMHO). Can it be done? Even I can see that it can, given the right impetus. Though perhaps too many companies are making a good $/£/Y off anti-spam systems based on, around or directly using SA. Be interesting to see where this thread goes. Kind regards Nigel
