You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org> on 2004/06/22 08:41:38 UTC
interesting paper on SpamAssassin (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
http://plg.uwaterloo.ca/~gvcormac/spamcormack.html
A good study comparing SpamAssassin (in several configurations) and
several other spam filtering systems, over the course of 8 months (Aug
2003 to Mar 2004). The measurements and methodology are all pretty
sound, as far as I can see.
Well worth a read...
- --j.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS
iD8DBQFA19SiQTcbUG5Y7woRAikGAJ4ye0EFbwOC0CrMtX8wk/TiIrNVnACgxWX/
4XDSllJJSiRBFIklOrF93fE=
=xzPv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
As seen on slashdot (Was: interesting paper on SpamAssassin)
Posted by Sidney Markowitz <si...@sidney.com>.
This was just reported on slashdot. So far it has generated the typical
mix of postings for a slashdot article that mentions SpamAssassin.
RE: interesting paper on SpamAssassin (fwd)
Posted by Henry Stern <he...@stern.ca>.
The author of the paper, Gordon Cormack, has a lot of experience in the area
of information retrieval. It would be a good idea to carefully analyse his
results and conclusions for ways to improve SpamAssassin and for approaches
that we should ignore.
I've been very skeptical of the hand wavy approaches with little theoretical
background or improper evaluation (e.g. Dobly and Bayesian chains). The
results in Cormack's paper should warn us against blindly accepting "cool"
ideas without taking the steps to ensure their validity.
Lastly, the positive results speak for themselves. Kudos guys!
Henry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Justin Mason [mailto:jm@jmason.org]
> Sent: June 22, 2004 3:42 AM
> To: SpamAssassin-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: interesting paper on SpamAssassin (fwd)
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> http://plg.uwaterloo.ca/~gvcormac/spamcormack.html
>
> A good study comparing SpamAssassin (in several configurations) and
> several other spam filtering systems, over the course of 8 months (Aug
> 2003 to Mar 2004). The measurements and methodology are all pretty
> sound, as far as I can see.
>
> Well worth a read...
>
> - --j.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Exmh CVS
>
> iD8DBQFA19SiQTcbUG5Y7woRAikGAJ4ye0EFbwOC0CrMtX8wk/TiIrNVnACgxWX/
> 4XDSllJJSiRBFIklOrF93fE=
> =xzPv
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----