Oh how I wish people would differentiate between GA(genetic alogirthms) and ANN(artificial neural networks)!!!!!!!!!!!
GA is chromosomes, crossover and all that jazz,
ANN is neurons, back-propogation et al.
Combining the 2 is like the unified theory of everything (talk to mr. Hawking if you don't believe me)!!!
</rant mode>
To my mind, the article makes an interesting point though:-
Catogorizing features of an email which can be passed to a classifier.
However, looking at it from a human standpoint (one which spam is aimed at), should the only feature of email we are interested in be that of the actual text which appears in our client????
Too often spam classifiers get clouded with hidden text, number of links etc.
Do you make your classification of spam in those terms????
Me neither!
Perhaps a spam classifier which looks at the context of a message might be more successful!!!!
Just a point:-D
Slashdot Mirror
Oh how I wish people would differentiate between GA(genetic alogirthms) and ANN(artificial neural networks)!!!!!!!!!!! GA is chromosomes, crossover and all that jazz, ANN is neurons, back-propogation et al. Combining the 2 is like the unified theory of everything (talk to mr. Hawking if you don't believe me)!!! </rant mode> To my mind, the article makes an interesting point though :-
Catogorizing features of an email which can be passed to a classifier.
However, looking at it from a human standpoint (one which spam is aimed at), should the only feature of email we are interested in be that of the actual text which appears in our client????
Too often spam classifiers get clouded with hidden text, number of links etc.
Do you make your classification of spam in those terms????
Me neither!
Perhaps a spam classifier which looks at the context of a message might be more successful!!!!
Just a point :-D