On 9/2/2014 12:19 PM, LuKreme wrote:
On 02 Sep 2014, at 01:57 , Ted Mittelstaedt<t...@ipinc.net> wrote:
On 8/31/2014 5:11 PM, LuKreme wrote:
On 31 Aug 2014, at 08:08 , Ted Mittelstaedt<t...@ipinc.net>
wrote:
Google does it. It's not impossible.
[snip]
My experience is that the commercial providers like Gmail are
now so aggressive that false positives are VERY common on their
systems, this leads to people nowadays quite commonly saying
"check your spam folder" on their websites and such that send
feedback messages.
These two statements do not go together.
Only because your stubbornly sticking your head in the sand.
Google has well over 90% catch rate on spam out of the box.
"Out of the box"? What does that even mean for Google? Do you mean
that when the introduced their gmail service they had 90% spam catch
rate? I don't recall that being the case at all.
Yes, that is my experience when I setup test addresses on Gmail and
stick them into spammer unsubscribe links. Lots of spam starts showing
up and over 90% in the junk folder.
Google ALSO has a 1-2% False Positive rate out of the box. Their
catch rate is so high because they are willing to accept a high
false positive rate.
That is one reason. The other reason, of course, is that they have
literally BILLIONS of mail messages to train from. In fact, Google
has so much mail to train from, that it is shocking to me they have
any false positives at all.
Any statistician will tell you that the billions is immaterial, that
if they get a small cross section of those billions they can train from
that and get the same results.
In other words, once you get enough spam, it all starts to look the
same. Once you get enough ham it all starts to look the same. That's
the whole point of the SA rulesets after all.
The fact is, if 2% of my mail ends up in my spam folder then I have
to spend a lot more time in my spam folder than I want to, and enough
time that it makes my spam folder useless because not only do I have
to scan it constantly, but I have to then go jump through some sorts
of hoops to train it to hopefully not be spam in the future.
Spread that 2% error rate over a half dozen email addresses and I am
back to the bad old days of the late 90s when the majority of the
time I spent in email was spent dealing with the spam.
I agree totally. But how do you answer the business owner who is as
ignorant of these things as a box of rocks and who just sees an empty
inbox? Even though they might have good mails going into their junk
folder. Since they are typical ignorant user they don't know enough to
check their spam folder.
Even worse are some of them who think that if I spend 30 minutes a day
digging ham out of my junk folder it's better than spending 30 minutes
a day deleting spam from my inbox. How do you respond to that?
Ted
