Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Response to Gordon Cormack's Study of Spam Detection

Posted by michael on from the even-stephen dept.

Nuclear Elephant writes "In light of Gordon Cormack's Study of Spam Detection recently posted on Slashdot, I felt compelled to architect an appropriate response to Cormack's technical errors in testing which ultimately explain why one of the world's most accurate spam filters (CRM114) could possibly end up at the bottom of the list, underneath SpamAssassin. I spend some time explaining what is a correct test process and keep my grievances simplified about the shortcomings of Cormack's research."

4 of 229 comments (clear)

  1. I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed... by VAXcat · · Score: 3, Funny

    I prefer using the original CRM114 discriminator and it's host platform on spammers. If you're not familiar with the original CRM114 and it's delivery platform, it was featured in the following movie... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012/combined

    --
    There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
  2. Re:I wouldn't take this critique too seriously by jpetts · · Score: 2, Funny

    While such can lead credence to a strong case, it bodes when mentioned as the very first points.

    But does it bode well or ill?

    --
    Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
  3. Re: Response to Gordon Cormack's Study of Spam by telstar · · Score: 2, Funny

    He launches rockets ... He develops 3D game engines ... He analyzes spam trends ... Is there anything this Carmack guy can't do?

    What'd you say?
    Cormack?

    Nevermind...

  4. Re:architect by reynhout · · Score: 2, Funny

    > For the love of Cthulu, people, "architect" is a noun, not a verb.

    Ya.

    And for the love of Howard Phillips Lovecraft, "Cthulhu" is not spelled "Cthulu".

    Duh.