You conclude with the statement that bayesian filters are wonderful.
You missed the main points.
1. Filters "filter" -- they do not stop spam. (Network volume,
resources, etc.)
2. If you know how it works, then you can defeat it.
3. And if it becomes a popular solution and heavily used, then spammers WILL put efforts into defeating it.
You're proud of how rarely it needs to be updated. But if someone
is consciously going around it, then it better update more often.
And since it isn't "100%" perfect, people CAN go around it.
Understood, they are targetting Bayesian filters as they know it. If spammers took the time to study dspam (right now it's not a major threat to them, as not enough people use it, so it's not hurting their bottom line), I believe they would and could get around it if it was worth it to them. What I'm getting at, is that you underestimate the persistance and intelligence of spammers, and that your product is only good right now. It is still a patch, it does NOT stop spam, just categorizes email, and it will be targetted if it were to become a threat, and your accuracy would go down because they would find ways around it. That is all. Case closed, you can't really argue with that until it happens, because you refuse to acknowledge it.
Oh I'm sure dspam was heard of, the point is you ain't making waves to spammers, so of course you can claim you can "stop spam" (even though filtering doesn't stop spam, it just categorizes it, aka it's not a solution, just a band-aid).
My point is, if you were a threat to Spammers, they would get past your filter, you'd be another spam assassin, and yet another failing filter that doesn't stop spam as perfect as you would like it to.
I've heard of dspam, I use it, but I use it, because it's not popular enough for the spammers to care.
Don't cry dspam dude, cuz you're shit ain't popular. When it gets popular, you'll see that your accuracy numbers will lower too, because you underestimate spammers.
Thanks again, ego-boy.
Slashdot Mirror
You conclude with the statement that bayesian filters are wonderful. You missed the main points. 1. Filters "filter" -- they do not stop spam. (Network volume, resources, etc.) 2. If you know how it works, then you can defeat it. 3. And if it becomes a popular solution and heavily used, then spammers WILL put efforts into defeating it. You're proud of how rarely it needs to be updated. But if someone is consciously going around it, then it better update more often. And since it isn't "100%" perfect, people CAN go around it.
Understood, they are targetting Bayesian filters as they know it. If spammers took the time to study dspam (right now it's not a major threat to them, as not enough people use it, so it's not hurting their bottom line), I believe they would and could get around it if it was worth it to them. What I'm getting at, is that you underestimate the persistance and intelligence of spammers, and that your product is only good right now. It is still a patch, it does NOT stop spam, just categorizes email, and it will be targetted if it were to become a threat, and your accuracy would go down because they would find ways around it. That is all. Case closed, you can't really argue with that until it happens, because you refuse to acknowledge it.
Oh I'm sure dspam was heard of, the point is you ain't making waves to spammers, so of course you can claim you can "stop spam" (even though filtering doesn't stop spam, it just categorizes it, aka it's not a solution, just a band-aid). My point is, if you were a threat to Spammers, they would get past your filter, you'd be another spam assassin, and yet another failing filter that doesn't stop spam as perfect as you would like it to. I've heard of dspam, I use it, but I use it, because it's not popular enough for the spammers to care.
Don't cry dspam dude, cuz you're shit ain't popular. When it gets popular, you'll see that your accuracy numbers will lower too, because you underestimate spammers. Thanks again, ego-boy.