On Wednesday 10 May 2006 13:12, James Wilkinson wrote: > > What we'd all *like*, ideally, is an antispam program that could > identify what we considered to be spam with 100% accuracy. > > That turns out to be practically impossible. There will be e-mails that > are border-line, e-mails that "look" like spam but are actually wanted > (false positives), e-mails that "look" wanted but are really spam (false > negatives), and ones that are pretty impossible to automatically > classify. > One should also bear in mind that 'one man's meat is another man's poison'. That alone makes accuracy impossible until any filtering program learns what is acceptable to you. Anne
Attachment:
pgpqsWQQyzcgf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
