--On 9 November 2006 17:09:41 +0000 Chris Lightfoot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 04:39:21PM +0000, Ian Eiloart wrote: >> Well, I think that there are spam filters that are more reliable than >> humans at detecting spam. That is; the spam filters get fewer false >> positives. > > That's obviously not possible. Yes, it is possible. You get some email that you want, it's buried in a pile of spam. You delete the pile, and accidentally delete the message that you wanted. OK, for a single message in an empty mailbox, you probably won't get a false positive. However, phishing relies on humans getting false negatives. Humans *are* fallible. The challenge isn't to achieve 0 false positives, it's to achieve fewer than the human. For a person who gets little spam, that's hard. If you get hundreds per day like I do, it's actually pretty easy. -- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
