At 01:47 AM 9/2/2002 +0200, Bert Driehuis wrote:
>Which is fine if you can afford the collateral damage, but if you then
>get a Chinese user on your system you'ld be in a spot of trouble until
>your system relearned with his input. I think this will only work on a
>per-user basis.

You're right about generalized rules spread out over a broad population,
but so long as each user can select his own scoring threshold I don't think
it's that big a deal. There's no reason why a user couldn't select, say,
98% confidence for his general filter and then pipe the results through his
own, more restrictive filter.

It might be even more reliable on an ISP insofar as probably multiple users
on the ISP would be targeted with the same spam, probably repeatedly
because spammers tend to use common address lists.

>And in particular, filtering on single words is outright asking for
>collateral damage. The word that was mentioned in this thread, c.u.m.,
>also happens to be part of the contruct "c.u.m. laude".

As I know well having built a job board for a community web site hosting
company that wanted to use their standard profanity filter on inbound
resumes. Fortunately they abandoned the idea. But that's a good example
of where an adaptive filter would work much more reliably. Rather than
toss every message containing that string, it would be weighed against
other words in the message which would, at least in the case of a resume,
drive down the scoring to probably an acceptable number.

-
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomopostfix.org with content
(not subject): unsubscribe postfix-users

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]