Marc, Let me first say I am truly sorry to here about your cancer. I lost my father to cancer just over a decade ago, after a long battle with sarcoma of the throat and tongue. So I pray and wish you the best.
I sent this to you in January 2016 (don't recall if I ever got a reply to it) but based on your document: Set theory is not my strongest suit, but your diagram looks incorrect: http://www.junkemailfilter.com/patent/patent5.pdf Let: H be ham S be spam E be an email Than you state that: HE = (H u E) SE = (S u E) But than the next diagram shows that there is some solution in which (HE u SE) and thus there may be some set which is (HE / SE). Even though in the first diagram S and H do not intersect. This is not logical. Either (H u S) in which there are tokens common to the ham and spam token sets, or it does not, so which is it?? in other words, if a token is both ham and spam how are you calculating it’s weight?? Is it spam or ham? Clearly it’s the latter (they do not intersect) as described in this: http://www.junkemailfilter.com/patent/patent2.pdf In which case you are simply looking to see if (H u E) > (S u E) and has nothing to do with what is not in the set, and there is indeed no (H u S) or the negation or NOT which is (H / S), so as everyone has been trying to explain it has NOTHING to do with what is NOT matched. By they way, you can’t match an infinite set (well theoretically but not actually). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersection_(set_theory) Since the current Bayes learns both SPAM and HAM I imagine that it does a very similar thing, other than perhaps the larger multi word token sets, which seems a trivial thing to add, and available in other tool sets. I'll only add this, if you believe that your SPAM has been greatly reduced. That's awesome! But have you really isolated it to this "new technique" or in playing around have you inadvertently changed something else that may have changed your results? I am also not saying that you have not developed some "new technique", but that if you have, your description of it does not line up logically with the technique itself. Back in January you were looking to patent it, today you simply want it to live on. I suggest that if it is indeed the latter, than perhaps it's time to release the source code/scripts and let a few more eyes look at the logic to see exactly what is it doing, that you believe is so different than what is out there. Again, I pray and hope the best for you, Shawn On Aug 16, 2016, at 6:45 AM, Marc Perkel <supp...@junkemailfilter.com<mailto:supp...@junkemailfilter.com>> wrote: Thanks for the encouragement Ted. Unfortunately I know way too much about mathematics and I have a deep understanding of probability spectrums. There's a curve and I'm going to be somewhere on it. If I'm lucky I might be here for some time. But my life is a casino right now. And yes - there is also a probability spectrum for any of us getting hit by a bus tomorrow as well. SpamAssassin is based on statistical probabilities. I have to have a dual track strategy. One one hand I need to do what I can to move the curve into the future. But at the same time I need to accomplish thing that are important within a limited time slot as well. Spam filtering isn't just another job to me. I actually have a passion for it. On a philosophical basis I look at the internet as the new nervous system for humanity and is now core to who we are as a species. And email is a very key technology in that nervous system. In that context spam is like poison where predators suck some of the life out of humanity, and my real life has always been about the progress of the human race. I am somewhat of a spam fighting savant. I actually run very little of my email through SpamAssassin, truth be told. Over the years I've thrown some ideas into the mix and sometimes they have been adopted to make SA better. Sometimes I just get shouted down by trolls and the ideas go no where. At this point however there's a deadline and I have ideas that could be implemented in SA very very easily. In fact it was through SA that I discovered Redis, and SA already talks to redis. Although my innovation is excellent as a programmer I'm mediocre. Never worked as a team. Easily frustrated. Probably somewhat autistic and somewhat arrogant. So mostly living in my own world doing my own development. I have my little online empire. I work from home. I make a great living. And I really like (most of) my customers and enjoy doing tech support. And it's allowed me a lot of free time to do things that I'm really interested in. But my ideas are now my immortality, so I'm now releasing this to the world. And mostly this simple AI method that SA could easily implement. This new spam filtering trick is not only extremely effective, it's extremely simple. I had it working in 2 days. The developers here could probably implement it in 1 day. (At least the core functionality) And with a team of better programmers probably do a better job and get a even better result than I get. In fact you don't need or even want my sloppy code (not in Perl). All you need is to read the description of how it works and once you get it - coding it is trivial. So - this is an opportunity to milk the mind of the dying spam savant. It works, it's easy, and I'm just handing it to you all. There is no reason I would be making this up. All you all need to do is accept this gift. On 08/16/16 01:03, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: Hi Marc, Back in 1994 I was diagnosed with testicular cancer, it was essentially "stage 4" as it had metastasized throughout my body. But, it responded to chemo and here I am today. In fact ironically my original oncologist died a few years ago - on a fishing trip he had an accident and drowned. The Universe has an interesting sense of humor and likes to throw curve balls. Take what you have been told about your "probability spectrum" and toss it in the trash - hakuna matata. You could accidentally step in front of a bus tomorrow and be dead. You could live another 20 years. Statistics on people only have meaning on large groups of people - they are irrelevant when it comes to the individual. I've met a number of people who had serious cancers. And I learned one thing from that. The people who survived - every one of them, fighters. And everyone fights differently. Some get on the food bandwagon and try overdosing on green tea and every alleged anti-cancer food out there. Others jump into yoga, and I knew one guy who went out and binged watched Monty Python to spend as much time laughing as possible. Me, I fought on a more mental approach. I dropped everything in my life that I was not completely satisfied with - I turned my back on my job, my apartment, etc. - every burden or responsibility that I had which I didn't like and didn't really want - and dove into the treatment, and I never let myself believe I was in any danger of dying. Of course, not all who fight, survive. But I will say with absolute conviction that everyone I ever met who had a serious cancer and had that "attitude of acceptance", later died. You are a fighter or you wouldn't even be here. Now, fight to win. Ted -- Marc Perkel - Sales/Support supp...@junkemailfilter.com<mailto:supp...@junkemailfilter.com> http://www.junkemailfilter.com Junk Email Filter dot com 415-992-3400
