Re: [Asrg] Fwd: Returned mail: see transcript for details

[wayne <wayne@midwestcs.com>]

In <200303312357.h2VNvrpd020394@calcite.rhyolite.com> Vernon Schryver <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com> writes:

> > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>
> 
> > ...
> > And in this particular instance 'by definition' means precisely that, it is
> > not used for emphasis. The definition of spam may be nebulous but false
> > positive is not.
> 
> It's unfortunate that is mistaken.  "False positive" is not as frequently
> abused as "spam," but it is often applied by bulk mail senders to any
> filtering of their messages.

Yes, there is some wiggle room about what exactly is a "false
positive", but I think it is somewhat of a red-herring to bring up
spammer's definitions.  Rule #1: Spammers lie.



> As others have pointed out, there is a genuine technical ambiguity in
> "false positive."  Is it RD/TOTAL or RD/SPAM?

For an example of "wiggle room", I have never consider a false
positive to be some sort of ratio.  It is a property of a piece of
email, just like a bounce or an email with 10 recipients are properties.

What you are asking about is what I would call the "false positive
rate". 



> We need clear and concise definitions for [list deleted]

Agreed.  


-wayne

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg