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

["Alan DeKok" <aland@freeradius.org>]

Vernon Schryver <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com> wrote:
>> [ false positives ...]
>
> So say you and I, but not everyone else.  There is no canon that
> sanctifies any particular definition of a "spam ratio," at least
> not yet.

  The ideas of false positives, signal to noise, etc. have been around
for decades.  I fail to see how the spam problem is so unique that
those methods and definitions don't apply.

  I will go through my old textbooks, and add text to the 'spam
measurement' document I'm working on, which will reference existing
definitions for these terms, and contain some simple examples.

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