[ Date Index ][
Thread Index ]
[ <= Previous by date /
[ Next by date /
thread => ]
Re: [LUG] backup MX
I had a look at the old "Writers' Worbench" because rather than the spelling
checker I wondered if grammar was the way to attack them.
Bayes has difficulty with the spams that have large numbers of unconnected
words - perfectly spelled, but perfectly meaningless.
Adding a grammar check, maybe an upper limit on the Gunning Fog index or on
incorrect sentences, would take them out very reliably, leaving the group
that have a long piece quoted form a book as their masking.
Maybe one area of attack is to tackle each MIME section individually, and
reject if any of them are rubbish.
On Wednesday 14 April 2004 13:04, Simon Waters wrote:
Adrian Midgley wrote:
What is amazing is how quickly people can do it though, isn't it.
We only need to look further than the subject in maybe 10% of messages
that make it through the Bayesian filter and other protections, and even
when we do it takes only moments.
As opposed to Dave's 500 a second ?!
500 a second that the machine can categorise... we get better at the difficult
end, on the population it failed to correctly categorise.
The Wetware is also more expensive and harder to fix when it
cheap, and can be produced by unskilled labour in 9 months...
Adrian Midgley (Linux desktop)
The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
Mail majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe list" in the
message body to unsubscribe.