On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 12:54:27PM -0700, John J. Stimson-III wrote: > > Solutions? I don't really know. Maybe increase the asymmetry between > the penalty for bogus reports and the reward for good reports (an > autoreporter could potentially make hundreds of good > reports for every false positive, especially if it's upstream from > razor-check).
The correct solution to the problem is more people contributing as much as they can without using automation. Reporting 5 manually verified spams a day is a lot better than reporting 100 of which 5 might be mailing lists. Razor2/SpamNet system has 100,000+ users at this point; it could be argued that spamtraps are not really required, and automata even less so. Remember the same (or almost same) spam goes out to millions of people, so one needs a much smaller reporter base to cover all the spam that is floating on the network. Equally important is to revoke. Razor is entirely based on human input so unless people explicitly voice their disagreement the system will be unable to self adjust. cheers, vipul. -- Vipul Ved Prakash | "The future is here, it's just not Software Design Artist | widely distributed yet." http://vipul.net/ | -- William Gibson ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: Influence the future of Java(TM) technology. Join the Java Community Process(SM) (JCP(SM)) program now. http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?sunm0004en _______________________________________________ Razor-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/razor-users
