This observation invites a heretical question. Is nearly perfect spam
classification dangerous compared to merely 99.9%/0.1% accurate classification?
If people get used to no spam do they become more vulnerable to really well
crafted spam?
{o.o}
On 2016-01-20 14:48, Marc Perkel wrote:
It could be challenging if someone impersonated a bank and they did it right.
I'm looking at more aspects than just the content of the message but that's an
area where there is some possible weakness. There are other tricks to address
the specifically. And I am looking at behavior and headers as well.
To be a little clearer. This new system isn't perfect. And it's main strength is
identifying good email. It does catch a lot more spam for sure but when people
scream at me it's because I blocked something important. So think of this more
as detecting ham as it's big feature.
On 01/20/16 14:37, jdow wrote:
And just how well does this work against spearfishing? And would the same
magic list work for ma and pa Kettle well into their 80s only receiving emails
from their children and Freddie Burfle with his heads buried in a corporate
accounts payable office?
{^_^}
