mouss wrote: >Shelby Moore wrote: >> >> Sorry but that lack of technical detail on our web site about the patent >is intentional for now. >> > >then why not wait for the patent to be pending/filed before starting a >discussion?
Because the purpose discussion in the other thread which you are referring to was not concerned with the patentability of AccuTechnology: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=spamassassin-devel&m=110979008703837&w=2 The point of that discussion was to determine how to integrate AccuTechnology into SA at this time (from now to summer). It was to get the harmonious direction figured out. >You have the full right to believe that you found _the_ solution. >Unfortunately for you, you aren't the first one. did you read the FUSSP >doc at > http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html I know. He wrote that because of me. Google on "kook". >you might also wanna check the litterature about "text categorization", >"information retrieval", ... We have. >You might be a genius, Thanks but I am not. > but the probability of someone being a genius is >ridiculously low (except from his viewpoint and that of his >family/friends/... but that's called auto-whitelistring:-). so please >give us the right to doubt. Agreed. I expect lots of doubt. I still doubt. Everyday I strive to prove more. As you said, it takes time to get from point a to point b. >tell you what? I am writing a paper that will provide a mathematical >proof that no method can get 0% FP and 0% FN, Agreed. Caveat: AccuSpam's (not AccuTechnology) Daily Summary can achieve 0% FPR, because the missed spam is sent as summary only. > and more, that any method >can only get "better" at some expenses. (no, I can't give you any infos >unless it is finished:-) Agreed. In our case some of the "expenses" are that we have to collect MUCH MORE data and we can not train on non-bulk spam, so we still need Bayesian for the non-bulk spam. >Anyway, if you believe in your solution, implement it as a proxy so that >all projects can use it. and good luck. Thanks. >as to the nfw reports, please keep'em for marketers and investors. >everybody knows what benchmarketing is. An inferior system that is tuned >for a test situation will always outperform a superior system used out >of the box. Tuning cost is part of the cost equation. However, I agree that nfw report was probably biased towards the Postini provider they use normally. However, I think it is known fact that a system like BrightMail can achieve about 95% without any training and very, very few FPs. I am not sure if SA is significantly better without training. I think AccuTechnology is an "order-of-magnitude" better, but I don't have enough data to prove it. I can only say with confidence that it is much better than other bulk correlators such as Razor and DCC. > >to shorten the matters: >- I don't believe your solution is good (not because I hate your >firstname or your domain, but because I have no idea what it really is). You mean you doubt. Understood. >- I personally don't wanna see anything commercial directly implemented >inside SA, unless it can be used according to SA license (we already >have enough licenses to read). I understand that you might not make a >life out of that, but fortunately for me, that would be your life. I >only care of mine (I'm kidding of course, I'll love to help but only if >I feel I can). No problem. We can emulate the Razor license, if that is already acceptable to SA. >anyway, good luck. Thanks! Appreciated. After all, the desire is to kill spam. You know what got me started on anti-spam???? I was running DownloadFAST.com and our customers often couldn't buy because they could get their password via email (we verify email as anti-fraud check and to insure contact before capturing the charge on the card account). I got so frustrated with false positives, that I decided to contact Vernon at DCC (major mistake!) to see if we could improve to a system that was more accurate. Well the rest is history. Just Google. Regards, Shelby
