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."

7 of 229 comments (clear)

  1. Whiny spam dudes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Redundant

    Whaaah! My spam killer is better than yours! I'm gonna architect you a new one bitch!

  2. Architect? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: -1, Redundant
    I felt compelled to architect an appropriate response
    Funny, I would have written or composed a response. Architect? I don't evern think that's a verb, much less a word that should be used to describe the creation of an essay or article.
    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  3. Two things by marnargulus · · Score: 0, Redundant

    1. Those bots that post goat.cx are very annoying. 2. The author of CRM114 admits that not everyone gets the results others do. Some people get perfect handling, while others get very poor handling. He also claims that setup might have been a problem with the testing. On one hand the tester should have set the system up correctly, but on the other hand this just shows that it isn't a fool-proof system (yet).

  4. architect by sammy+baby · · Score: -1, Redundant
    Okay, here's a pet peeve. Mod me way the hell down.
    "In light of Gordon Cormack's Study of Spam Detection recently posted on Slashdot, I felt compelled to architect an appropriate response...


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

    With that said: yowch. If Zdziarski's criticisms are accurate, Cormack got some esplainin' to do.
  5. Re:You don't like my software so I'll flame you by cloudmaster · · Score: 0, Redundant

    "Boo Hoo, my spam filter doesn't perform well in short simulations because it takes time into consideration. This guy tested incorrectly." Whatever. I use SpamAssasin company-wide, with 0 false positives and about 5-1 messages out of several thousand gettting through each day. Maybe this whiner's software's even better, but all I got from his article was that he's someone who I don't want to depend on for software support.

  6. Re:Excellent review by shockbeton · · Score: 0, Redundant

    On the origional forum, I was saying something of the similair (except not nearly as well written!! hehe)

    No, no, no. Let's be clear here. The article was not well written. It was well "architected" whetever the fuck that is.

    I guess it's similar to the way in which I constructed this reply from precast concrete building components.


    -----
    The world's greatest stuff: www.smithtwins.com

  7. Re:for god's sake... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Redundant

    I dunno, what's the difference between a pile of shit and a pile of fresh fertilizer?

    I dunno, what?