Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Plan for Spam, Version 2

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the bayesian-filtering-for-a-quieter-inbox dept.

bugbear writes "I just posted a new version of the Plan for Spam Bayesian filtering algorithm. The big change is to mark tokens by context. The new version decreases spams missed by 50%, to 2.5 per 1000, even though spam has gotten harder to filter since the summer. I also talk about how spam will evolve, and what to do about it."

9 of 459 comments (clear)

  1. Blocking spam should be illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Ads are what keep the Internet running. By blocking spam, you stifle a vital industry.

    If you love the Internet you will take all the spam you can get. I just hope laws are made that disallow anti-spam measures.

    The government really needs to step in here.

    1. Re:Blocking spam should be illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      If you love the Internet you will take all the spam you can get.

      You suck. This measure is half hearted. Taking all the spam you can get does not help anyone, let alone the Internet. People need to respond to the spam, as well.

      Failing to respond to spam should be illegal.

  2. IN SOVIET RUSSIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    BSD kills YOU!

  3. Spam needs a global solution by PhysicsGenius · · Score: 1, Troll
    Fighting spam as individuals isn't going to work, there are always going to be ways to get around filters and such. I think the problem needs a mathematical treatment at a global level and I would like to suggest a basis for that treatment.

    First of all, let's realize that email is communication is data transmission. Spam is noise. This immediately brings to mind Claude Shannin's work on information and entropy. He made it very clear that noise can be reduced to a level that is O log(n) that of the information transmitted. This means that as we have more and more email out there, we are going to get more and more noise, unless we change something.

    Let's go back to the definition of information. Basically, it's stuff that nobody knows about. If it is surprising to you, it is information (in non-technical language). That suggests that perhaps the information content (and therefore spam) could be reduced if, instead of secretively emailing our friends individually, we CC'd them on all our missives. This would make the amount of information lower (since people would be less surprised by our further revelations, having seen the foregoing matter) and therefore spam might even be eliminated.

  4. Re:base64 encoded emails....or images by stratjakt · · Score: -1, Troll

    Yes, you block all HTML.

    To a geek, the only acceptable email is plaintext with no markups, or even capital letters or punctuation.

    That's why this won't 'eliminate' spam. Sure it can keep it out of your corporate intranet, if you expect only plaintext memos, but it won't let grandma know if the picture in her inbox is of one of her grandchildren or this guy.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  5. Re:Problem you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    s/termos/fucking wanker.

  6. 1.post, 2. troll, 3. ????, 4.Profit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll
    • Slashdot subscription - $10
    • DSL line - $29.99/mo
    • 486sx/16 - $5 at a yardsale
    • FreeBSD - $2.98 @ cheapbytes
    • beating a dead horse - PRICELESS
  7. You, sir, are a insensitive clod! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll
    That guy is somebody's grandson!

    (actually four somebody's grandson, but you get the point!)

  8. Re:base64 encoded emails....or images by Rogerborg · · Score: 0, Troll

    Great! Where do I find those options in telnet?

    Or would you care to specify what mail client your sage advice applies to.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.