On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 21:17:28 +0100, Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I do not dispute that they eliminate spam, at least with the current
> generation of spamming technology. I merely claim that they are far
> from invulnerable, in particular to false positives. Some people
> care about this, some don't, and that's fine. However, *please*
> accept the existence of the other camp!
I think we should get a few things clear.
Any mechanism that eliminates spam is likely to have false
positives and false negatives; Alan has been trying to say that his
system reduces false negatives to nothing; I actully contest this
statement in the face of things like klez and increasingly
sophisticated spoofing of real email addresses by spammers.
This is done, as you rightly state, at the expense of a far
higher false positive rate; which some people (including me) find
unacceptable.
manoj
--
If you have nothing to do, don't do it here.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
