Slashdot Mirror


Comparison of Bayesian POP3 Spam Filters

kreide writes "Spam e-mail has become an ever increasing problem, and these days it is next to impossible to use e-mail without receiving it in large amounts. Although various techniques exits to combat the problem, spammers seemed to be winning the war - until a new, powerful weapon appeared on the scene: Bayesian filters, our last, best hope for spam-free inboxes. In this review I compare POP3 based bayesian spam filters." We did an Ask Slashdot on this a few weeks ago.

11 of 326 comments (clear)

  1. Bayesian filters are useful, but... by fr0z · · Score: 5, Funny

    I still believe that we should have a hunting season for spammers, just like we do for ducks...

    --
    Never underestimate the predictability of human stupidity...
    1. Re:Bayesian filters are useful, but... by ctr2sprt · · Score: 4, Funny

      Spammer: Duck season!
      You: Spammer season!
      Spammer: Duck season!
      You: Duck season!
      Spammer: Spammer season! Fire!
      *bang*

    2. Re:Bayesian filters are useful, but... by frovingslosh · · Score: 4, Funny

      I like your way of thinking. It's much like my approach of defending myself with deadly force when I'm attacked with the deadly weapon of second hand smoke.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  2. Re:You just don't get it by joonasl · · Score: 1, Funny
    Hell, they might even have the opposite effect; I will never buy something if I get spam for it. But if I personally filter my spam and don't even see subject lines, I might end up buying the product without knowing they also marketed it by spam.

    Just stay of herbal Viagra and penis enlargement pills, man! :)

    --
    "There is a terrorist behind every bush"
  3. Re:Spam is not the same as commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    eat up only my free time - not my emails or work efficiency.

    Uhhuh? And why are you reading /.? To improve your work efficiency??

  4. Re:You just don't get it by Plug · · Score: 5, Funny

    How many people you know that email you 12 gifs/jpegs in one message with LARGE red text. ????

    Lots of them. They're called 'girls' and Slashdot should encourage communication with them wherever possible.

  5. Re:You just don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well actually got the Viagra and the penis enlargement pills... they work perfectly.

    The problem is there were no instructions on how to find a partner.

  6. Re:You just don't get it by MuParadigm · · Score: 3, Funny


    I do not know how many times I have to tell people this.

    They do not work. They just make your hand smaller.

  7. Re:wtf by Chokma · · Score: 3, Funny

    filtering is no solution as long as there's no way to stop the spammers!
    Or would you say that ignoring the corpses in the gutters would be a solution to the problem of violence on the streets?

    Your analogy is slightly flawed. In the case of spam, it would be correct if:

    • I would have to examine every corpse closely to determine if it is sill alive
    • I would have to manually remove the corpse from the street

    On my system, SpamAssassin kills 99% of the Spam, carries it outside, buries the remains in the spam folder and cleans away the bloodstains on the floor. The less I get in touch with spam, the better.

    In the perfect world, there would be a "nuke obnoxious netizen" button on my keyboard. But alas, we have to settle for slightly less efficient methods.

  8. Why Kill the Spammer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Why kill the spammer, when you should be focusing on the idiot users that purchase shit from these guys. Kill 'em all! or was it Sue 'em all! I always forget these days!

  9. Bayesian 5 third season opening credits by Dhraakellian · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Bayesian Project was our last, best hope for peace.

    It failed...

    But in the year of the Spammer War, it became something greater: Our last, best hope for spam-free inboxes.

    The year is 2003, the place: Bayesian 5.

    --
    I've read Grocklaw. BoycottNovell, you're no Grocklaw