deloptes writes:
> Nicolas George wrote:
>
> I doubt there is something meaningful beyond bayesian spam filter. It is the
> most efficient way. Neural Network is a method, which would not apply very
> well to spam detection as it is more sophisticated and leads to unjustified
> overhead. This is my estimation only, but I spent few years studying some
> aspects of AI in the domain of text and speech processing and I think I
> would qualify for opinion.
> If I recall correctly bayesian method is based on providing probability by
> observing 1 item in context of 2 other items, which is scientifically
> proven to be most efficient. I recall there were statistics that you gain
> almost nothing if you add another 1 or 2 items to the context.
> At that time neural networks were introduced and we had few exercises, so I
> think I also know how basically NN works.
>
Its very old, (c. 1994, when "bugless" added scoring to recipes,) but
procmail(1) can be used for Bayesian UCE filtering, (or very close
approximation thereof.) See:
http://www.johncon.com/john/StochasticUCEDetection/
In addition, it can analyze message's metadata, (i.e., Received:
records, etc.,) and, importantly, handle whitelists, etc.
John
--
John Conover, cono...@rahul.net, http://www.johncon.com/
