Slashdot Mirror
Proving Which Spam Filters work Best
pirateninja writes "Dr. Gord Cormack decided to find and prove what the best spam filter is. In his study he looked at the major spam filters (DSPAM, SpamAssassin, etc.) along with those submitted by various academics. The results are quite surprising, with a previously unheard-of spam filter, which uses ideas from various compression algorithms, performing the best overall. He recently presented the results and methodology used in a presentation titled 'Spam Filters, Do they Work? and Can you prove it?'" Note that this is a video of his presentation.
So, how are we supposed to RTFA then the FA is over 470MB and a video file. Why not just a nice simple text summary Mr Submitter, but nooooo that would just be too easy!
Orationem pulchram non habens, scribo ista linea in lingua Latina
Although I haven't WTFV (watched the video), it doesn't seem surprising that spam filters which use techniques that aren't used widely would be most successful.
If they aren't used widely, it would either be because they don't work, or they do work but they haven't caught on [yet].
It's like any other fad. As an example, when the original Survivor series came out, it was really popular because it achieved its goal (attracting viewers) in a way that was original. Heck, even I watched the original one. Now that all the networks are doing the reality TV thing, it has become hackneyed, and each successive version of survivor does a worse job of achieving its goal. And I've given up watching TV.
With antispam, new techniques are effective, but as they become more popular and more widely used, spammers will find equally innovative ways of getting around them.
I've noticed that at any given time, there will be a particular style of (non-blank) spam that manages to get through Gmail's filters fairly consistently, but every now and then Gmail adapts its spam filters to block the successful spam type of the season, and eventually a new type will make its way through.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
Why exactly should be give any weight to anything from and organization so ignorant as to disallow bittorrent? I take someone pretty darn ignorant to disallow a protocol because some use it to transport illegal content. Why havn't then banned TCP? It is an evil technology used every day to violate copyright.
This guy should spend his time educating the fools at his institution.
Don't knock it, cuneiform on backed clay is the single most successful format for long-term storage ever invented - 3000 years and counting. Heck, most of our modern storage formats can't even manage 30 - tied to read a 8" floppy recently?
"False positives may be a problem, however."
False positives are a HUGE problem compared to the occasional "true negative"(?).
I'd rather have a small trickle of spam emails (I can't believe I'm saying this, but hear me out) than I would risk missing out on that one truly important email.
"Good news, everyone!"
Am I the only one that read the means of presentation as a hilarious attack on a university policy of blocking bittorrent? Given that adding 470MB doesn't really add any usable information to a discussion about spam filters over a piece of text, and all.
Your college doesn't like bandwidth-efficient delivery? Flood them with a Slashdot effect on a 500mb file, an extra $500 in bandwidth charges, and maybe they'll change their tune.
People in Soviet Russia, however, appear to be afflicted with amusing juxtapositions of the aforementioned situation