Michael Scheidell wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jorge Valdes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 5:12 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: ImageInfo vs FuzzyOCR performance?
SPAM Results:
3936 Message(s) 49.83%
19.399 Average Score
Jeff Chan wrote:
> Does anyone have any recent feedback about the performance of
> ImageInfo versus FuzzyOCR about detecting stock image spams (or
> any others)? Does FuzzyOCR catch significantly more spams than
> ImageInfo?
But one of the things that ImageInfo does to avoid FPs is assign a highe
> -Original Message-
> From: Jorge Valdes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 5:12 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: ImageInfo vs FuzzyOCR performance?
>
> SPAM Results:
>3936 Message(s) 49.83%
>
Jeff Chan wrote:
Does anyone have any recent feedback about the performance of
ImageInfo versus FuzzyOCR about detecting stock image spams (or
any others)? Does FuzzyOCR catch significantly more spams than
ImageInfo?
Cheers,
Jeff C.
I maybe biased, as I help in FuzzyOcr development, but do
--On Friday, October 27, 2006 6:29 AM -0700 Jeff Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Does anyone have any recent feedback about the performance of
ImageInfo versus FuzzyOCR about detecting stock image spams (or
any others)? Does FuzzyOCR catch significantly more spams than
ImageInfo?
The last I
Does anyone have any recent feedback about the performance of
ImageInfo versus FuzzyOCR about detecting stock image spams (or
any others)? Does FuzzyOCR catch significantly more spams than
ImageInfo?
Cheers,
Jeff C.
--
Jeff Chan
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.surbl.org/