I call bullshit on the 'it just works' propaganda. My brother bought my parents an original bandai blue iMac and the thing sucked over 72 man hours of time trying to get a usb printer to work with it. Apparently the usb firmware was simply junk as shipped.
I have a couple of points to bring up about spam.
I work for a company that sends out millions of e-mails a day. We get them by users signing up for things on our sites. I know we don't get addresses any other way because I am the one who manages that stuff. At this very minute we are getting thousands of aol user's unsubscribe e-mails they have forwarded to aol's admins instead of clicking on the unsubscribe link. I have observed the following things:
1. Users are idiots that call e-mail they have in fact requested spam.
2. Sometimes e-mail gets blocked for a time by spam filters and months later the user starts getting it and calls it spam. This is understandable, but still doesn't make the e-mail spam.
3. Our return address is faked on e-mail and we get responses from users threatening to tell the FTC and other idiocy. Apparently your average clueless user doesn't understand you could train a chimp to fake return addresses. My favorite part of this is that they are now guilty of sending unsolicited e-mail, the same thing they are accusing us of doing. Even a quick glance at the headers or the site in question is often enough to show the address was faked.
5. Users don't click on the unsubscribe button because they think this will confirm their address and instead send it to the ISP as spam.
So, to summarize:
Spam is bad and the ones who make a business of sending unsolicited data are asses, but people are also imbeciles that call stuff they actually did sign up for spam.
I have considered using trigrams or bigrams instead of a simple monogram for the weighting. This takes into account the "neighborhood" around terms and is/was used by the NSA. These frequencies can be dropped directly into the equations I beleive.
Eg.:
sample text:
a simple sentance to show off.
bigrammatic analysis:
a simple 1
simple sentance 1
sentence to 1
to show 1
show off 1
trigrammatic analysis:
a simple sentance 1
simple sentence to 1
sentence to show 1
to show off 1
This is used in cryptography in various ways and I have used it where I was publishing something and had to match up citations that had been edited and ones that hadn't with each other so I knew which numbers matched. (They had updated the cites and changed the numbering, adding or deleting some between versions.)
Slashdot Mirror
I call bullshit on the 'it just works' propaganda. My brother bought my parents an original bandai blue iMac and the thing sucked over 72 man hours of time trying to get a usb printer to work with it. Apparently the usb firmware was simply junk as shipped.
.. nonsense!
It just works,
I have a couple of points to bring up about spam. I work for a company that sends out millions of e-mails a day. We get them by users signing up for things on our sites. I know we don't get addresses any other way because I am the one who manages that stuff. At this very minute we are getting thousands of aol user's unsubscribe e-mails they have forwarded to aol's admins instead of clicking on the unsubscribe link. I have observed the following things:
1. Users are idiots that call e-mail they have in fact requested spam.
2. Sometimes e-mail gets blocked for a time by spam filters and months later the user starts getting it and calls it spam. This is understandable, but still doesn't make the e-mail spam.
3. Our return address is faked on e-mail and we get responses from users threatening to tell the FTC and other idiocy. Apparently your average clueless user doesn't understand you could train a chimp to fake return addresses. My favorite part of this is that they are now guilty of sending unsolicited e-mail, the same thing they are accusing us of doing. Even a quick glance at the headers or the site in question is often enough to show the address was faked.
5. Users don't click on the unsubscribe button because they think this will confirm their address and instead send it to the ISP as spam.
So, to summarize:
Spam is bad and the ones who make a business of sending unsolicited data are asses, but people are also imbeciles that call stuff they actually did sign up for spam.
I have considered using trigrams or bigrams instead of a simple monogram for the weighting. This takes into account the "neighborhood" around terms and is/was used by the NSA. These frequencies can be dropped directly into the equations I beleive.
Eg.:
sample text:
a simple sentance to show off.
bigrammatic analysis:
a simple 1
simple sentance 1
sentence to 1
to show 1
show off 1
trigrammatic analysis:
a simple sentance 1
simple sentence to 1
sentence to show 1
to show off 1
This is used in cryptography in various ways and I have used it where I was publishing something and had to match up citations that had been edited and ones that hadn't with each other so I knew which numbers matched. (They had updated the cites and changed the numbering, adding or deleting some between versions.)