The industry that I work in is currently having its concept of risk assessment
thoroughly shaken. The sort of risks we deal with have three main, largely
independant factors. For years we've been assigning a value to each of these
factors, and then adding them up to come up with a figure
From: Chris Hastie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The industry that I work in is currently having its concept of risk
assessment
thoroughly shaken. The sort of risks we deal with have three main, largely
independant factors. For years we've been assigning a value to each of
these
factors, and then adding
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, jdow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
From: Chris Hastie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thus if a piece of mail has failed all three of these tests, the
probability of
it being ham is 0.05 * 0.2 * 0.4 = 0.004, or 1/250. Or put another way, we
can
be 99.6% sure it is spam.
They got there
Chris Hastie wrote:
The industry that I work in is currently having its concept of risk assessment
thoroughly shaken. The sort of risks we deal with have three main, largely
independant factors. For years we've been assigning a value to each of these
factors, and then adding them up to come up
Pardon me - I misread your memo. They use adding rather than multiplying.
Adding is more appropriate for scores related to spam than to ham. (The
proper would be to somehow invert the probability of being spam score,
multiply them together, and then reinvert to get a spaminess score. The
additions
