Hi Marc, I can't commit to providing a timely review of your idea (although I'm happy to keep any communication in confidence if you would like to share), but I think I can point out a very likely weakness that you should consider.
The biggest challenge with SA is that it is so widely deployed. Spammers run it, there are probably even some who observe this list, and so they can work to optimize mail that passes any sort of content checking -- that's why trust-based metrics like SPF, DKIM, RBL, AWL, etc. end up being our best tools. Not having yet published your idea or implementation, you have the benefit of not being a testing target. Once your idea gains market share, it becomes a target. Spammers will tweak their mail and verify it gets past your filter mechanism. Your effectiveness will rapidly decline. Perhaps I'm wrong, though, and I wish you the best of luck! Regards, --Jered ----- On Jan 13, 2016, at 8:11 PM, Marc Perkel [email protected] wrote: > OK - this might sound a little unbelievable but I'm not making this up. > I want to introduce this because I'm hoping to release this soon and I > want to create some buzz and anticipation. I'm not going to talk about > the details yet but I hope to soon. > > I just filed a provisional method patent on the method and tomorrow I'm > going to be talking to some investor types about it. I'm also working on > improving the methods I'm using, but this new trick is so accurate that > 1 month ago if someone asked me if this level of accuracy was possible, > I would have said - no way! > > I'm calling it the Evolution Filter. The name is somewhat of a clue to > how it works. > > I'm seeing levels of accuracy getting really close to 100%. And it's > especially good at actively detecting good email so false positives are > almost not existent. > > I've been filtering spam now for 15 years and been on this list for > about that long and I'm not the kind of guy to just make this stuff up. > > My intent right now is to just get enough IP protection so I can get a > license fee from the big corps. I plane on giving it away free to the > little guys. So that if you have less that 10,000 email accounts it's > free. Hoping to get like 1 cent per email account per year from the big > guys. > > Although this idea is very unique, it's actually rather simple to > implement. I'm using Redis and since SA is also using redis it should be > trivial to add it to SA. My programming skills are good but not great. > So the developers here should be able to do a significantly better job > than me. It only took me an afternoon to implement the concept and it > was already impressive with just 3 hours of learning. > > This is not Bayesian or remotely similar to Bayesian. It does use a DB > like Bayesian does and there is learning involved. But it's probably > 100x better at detecting spam and 1000x better at detecting good email. > > My plan is that this technique is going to be so good that everyone is > going to immediately implement it. And because of that the big boys will > license it from me. > > The accuracy is so good that it could put many spammers out of business. > It can recognize spam more accurately that I can by hand looking at > someone elses email. > > If someone on this list wants to verify that I'm not just smoking the > wrong kind of cigarettes I'm willing to let people test it on the > condition that you report back here and tell everyone what your > experience is. > > If anyone has some feedback about how I can make this available to > everyone and make a little something in licensing fees I'm definitely > listening. I do want to release this to you all soon because you'll > probably make it better than I have. > > I have a little more info on Dvorak's blog. > > http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2016/01/12/i-invented-a-new-way-to-filter-spam-thinking-about-a-patent/ > > -- > Marc Perkel - Sales/Support > [email protected] > http://www.junkemailfilter.com > Junk Email Filter dot com > 415-992-3400
