First of all the subject of this thread is an incorrect assumption. AccuTechnology can include an alternative embodiment in an analog circuit.
Marc Perkel wrote: >I've read your web page and I'm a little confused about what it is you >hope to patent. That is intentional. But you are way off target below. >The concept of sender verification is not new. Please read our web page again. We state clearly that is not part of AccuTechnology. > In fact it's already in >Exim and Postfix now and I'm using it and it works great. Unlink what >you are proposing - sending "confirmation" messages to see if they >bounce - Exim starts a bounce message sequence and sees if it takes it. Yes this is superior method, but some MTA (e.g. AOL) take it but bounce later. >And you can distinguish between misconfigured servers and servers that >really say that there is no user by that name. I have a number of Exim >tricks that allow me to get rid of 90% of spam without SA ever seeing >it. I use SA for the hard ones. Agreed. >In my setup I bounce incoming mail that is clearly not from a real user >at connect time. I don't bother to accept the message and learn it >because these messages are from really poor spammers and I don't want to >waste the cpu resources to process it. I see the same messages from non-existent and existent senders. That is an example that I am contributing and not withholding helpful knowledge. > By rejecting these email it makes >my spam corpus better in that my spam comes from smarter spammers and is >more of a challenge to detect. Processing message from dumb spammers >gives you a false sense of success and I think artificially inflates the >success rates. You are conflating. You can train on non-existent senders, but remove them from your performance measurements. >As to your superior filter - are you talking about some new bayesian >like filter you've developed? NO. > I am currebtly running 2 bayesian filters >on my system. The second filter - spamprobe - is fed custom tokens that >are generated by a program I wrote that passes only the (enhanced) >headers and hot parts of the body. The output of spamprobe is turned >into 11 levels of results and fed back into SA for scoring. Are you >doing something like this? If so - I'm already doing it. NO. >I'm against software patents in the first place - I am against trivial method patents which stifle software innovation: http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1881#1881 > but I question from >what you have on your web site if you have anything that really is >patentable. If so - it doesn't seem to describe it. So - I'm left confused. Sorry but that lack of technical detail on our web site about the patent is intentional for now.
