Bayesian filtering sure SEEMS like a panacea to me...
Posted Oct 16, 2003 14:09 UTC (Thu) by
RobSeace (subscriber, #4435)
In reply to:
Bayesian filtering isn't a panacea by rfunk
Parent article:
Open spam filtering rules considered harmful?
Do you retrain it to recognize those messages that make it through as spam?
If not, that's your problem, right there... You have to correct it when it
makes a mistake, so it can learn from it... Otherwise, it's just going to
continue making the same mistake in the future... It's a learning system,
and if you train it properly initially, and KEEP it properly trained by
correcting all mistakes, then it just gets better and better, and ultimately
the mistakes all but disappear... I get between 100 and 200 spams per day
at 2 separate E-mail addresses... I run SpamBayes on one and bogofilter on
the other... Both of them catch all of the spams, almost every single day...
(With no false-positives at all, either...) Maybe ONE single spam per MONTH
will make it through either one and into my mailbox... And, after a simple
retraining to recognize that message as spam, it and all future similar ones
will then be caught, forcing the spammers to try to come up with some NEW
trick to make it past (which will then be learned by the filters as well,
of course)... As near as *I* can sure see, based on my own personal
experience, Bayesian filtering sure IS about as close to a panacea as one
is ever likely to see in the world of spam-filtering... But, of course,
if you don't keep your Bayesian filter properly trained and correct it when
it makes mistakes, then of course it can't work properly... But, that's
not the fault of the filter, but of the user, in that case...
(
Log in to post comments)
