From: Dan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I've developed a new approach to scoring that I want to 1) share with > everyone and 2) make into a working system thats as accurate as what > I've already built, but easier to use. First, the theory: > > > > SITUATION > In the beginning, all email was ham. When spam came along, we left > the ham alone and targeted the annoyance (spam). > > ASSUMPTION > All messages are ham unless x,y,z score says they're spam. > > APPROACH > Block nothing, then create rules to catch what you don't want. ie, > build tests that target the spam, then score the millions of ways > spam can occur. > > RESULT > Huge time spent tuning and retuning weights, catching everything in > sight (including much ham). > > > > NEW SITUATION > Ham is now the tiniest minority of all email. > > NEW ASSUMPTION > All messages are spam unless x,y,z score says they're ham. > > NEW APPROACH > Block everything, then create rules to not catch what you do want. > ie, build tests that target the spam (keeping all the tests you've > already built), then score the thousands of ways ham triggers on > those tests. > > NEW RESULT > Spend less time and energy while catching more of what you do want > and less of what you don't. > > > > CHALLENGE > All filtering software is written to score for results that equal > spam -> catch the bad > > SOLUTION > Make filtering software score for results that equal ham -> uncatch > the good. > > > Your thoughts?
How can this method "spend less time and energy"? Aren't you going to build a "mirrored" method with respect to the actual one? Your rules wouldn't be like the actual ones, but negated? Giampaolo > > Dan > > > BTW, is there a better forum for this level of question? >
