Re: Why Spam is a problem

[John Stracke <jstracke at centivinc.com>]

Perry E. Metzger wrote:

> Frank Solensky <fsolensky at PREMONITIA.COM> writes:
>  
>
> > 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:
> >
> > http://www.paulgraham.com/spam.html
> >    
>
> The problem is that, naturally, the spammers will start running the
> tool over their spam before sending it and tweaking it until it
> passes. This has happened for previous techniques.
>  
That would be less somewhat useful in this case, though, since each user 
has their own table of keywords.

--
/===========================================\
|John Stracke      |jstracke at centivinc.com  |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centivinc.com|
|Centiv            |My opinions are my own. |
|===========================================|
|"Who died and made you king?" "My father." |
\===========================================/