At 1/11/2005 08:44 AM, Simon Troup wrote:
>>>>> If you're *not* receiving all your spam and evaluating for >>>>> false positives on a regular basis, then you're losing some >>>>> percentage of legitimate messages. > >>>> This is obviously your personal opinion since, as a blanket >>>> statement, it is false. > >>> Sorry, so which solution is it that doesn't require you to download >>> every message from the server, but absolutely guarantees against >>> false positives? > >> BrightMail spam filter run by the ISP. > >I'm presuming that you're basing this accuracy on statistics provided by >Symantec themselves as you don't actually get to see what is rejected. I >suppose we could all judge the danger of smoking on research carried out by >British American Tobacco.
You are totally incorrect.
BrightMail puts all "spam" in a web mail folder accessible by the user.
I have checked 250,000 spams over the past 2 1/2 years and there has NEVER been a false positive.
Does that mean there never will? Obviously, not.
>I'm sure BrightMail is an excellent spam filter, but no company has as yet >claimed 100% accuracy. Brightmail "claim" 99.9999% - if your ISP handles >10,000,000 emails a day then it's likely 10 of its customers register a >false positive. That's enough for me to keep checking - there's a pretty >slim chance of my Hard Disk losing data in the first three years according >to the manufacturer, but I'm still going to make backups.
Please keep your posts to something that you understand.
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
