Re: [Asrg] 2.0 Metrics

[Vernon Schryver <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com>]

> From: Clifton Royston <cliftonr@lava.net>

> ...
>   This does not take into account the differential cost of false
> positives and false negatives; I do want to look at the Androutsopoulos
> paper for this TCR measure.  However, I think it is potentially useful.
> ...

Because the differential costs of false positives and negatives differ
by orders of magnitude, any spam defense metric that consists of a
single number will have very limited utility.  Some people value not
receiving spam 100 times more than not receiving legitimate mail and
so are happy with 10% false positive rates.  Other organizatiosn will
not tolerate 0.1% false positive rates no matter how many clerks must
be hired to manually filter spam.  A metric that says one system has
a value of 10 and second has a value of 100 cannot tell you which
system (if either) is usable, not mention which is better according
to your lights.


Vernon Schryver    vjs@rhyolite.com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg