Whereas my concerns for your mathematical nonsense is zip, nada, zero, nothing,
goawayyoubothermechild.
Seriously, your claim is patent nonsense yet you expect people to listen to
you. That IS rather childish behavior, you know. You can't have been running
anti-spam tools long enough to reach your number given the email volumes you
cite. That would take close to 100 years to get a meaningful enough count of
spam to allow you to make the claim you made. IMAO that makes you the spammer/
troll not Christian.
{^_-}
On 2011/11/27 04:04, Noel Butler wrote:
yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
my care factor about what some spammy troll like yourself has to say, is,
well... in the words of Elton John - too low for zero
On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 00:25 -0300, Christian Grunfeld wrote:
> 2011/11/24 Noel Butler<noel.but...@ausics.net
<mailto:noel.but...@ausics.net>>:
>> its up to them if they want to or not, the spam folders have very little
>> in
>> them here because of our approach, and in our tests we have had
>> 0.00000001%
>> of FP's in that, which is really good.
>
> 0.00000001% is 1 FP over 10.000.000.000 !!!!!! 1 over 10 billion mails
> !!!!!!
>
> I really love people on this list !!!
>
> Your maths are flawed, you assume too much and wrongly.
> We have 12 front ends, each process about 1.5 - 1.7 million ACCEPTED
> messages a day, hence why we are so happy with the way things are. But hey,
> imagine the resources we'd recover if we allowed little twirp spammers like
> yourself the luxury of turning off anti spam measures and letting the users
> decide.... Wait... Nah... I don't think so some how.
My maths are flawed? I think yours are !
1% FP is 1 FP over 100 emails
0.1% is 1 over 1,000
0.01% is 1 over 10,000
0.001% is 1 over 100,.000
....
I think you can continue
....
0.000,000,01% is 1 FP over 10,000,000,000 !!
I'm not scared about your email volume...I doubt about your FP ratio !!!
