Re: Why Spam is a problem

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Why Spam is a problem

To: Frank Solensky <fsolensky at premonitia.com>
Subject: Re: Why Spam is a problem
From: Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 14:55:30 -0400
Cc: ietf at ietf.org
In-reply-to: (Your message of "16 Aug 2002 13:27:49 EDT.") <1029518870.1816.20.camel@mccoy>
Sender: owner-ietf at ietf.org

> Just posted on slashdot: a Bayesian approach to the problem that reports
> to have rates of 0.5% on false positives and 0% false negative:

for one recipient.  try to make the same table serve more recipients, and 
the number of false positives quickly goes way up.

Keith

References:
- Re: Why Spam is a problem
  - From: Frank Solensky

Prev by Date: Re: Why Spam is a problem
Next by Date: One SPAM side effect
Previous by thread: Re: Why Spam is a problem
Next by thread: Re: Why Spam is a problem
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.