Around 14 o'clock on Nov 26, David Dawes wrote: > All I can really say so far without having analysed the data is that > the number of false positives has been relatively small compared to the > number of valid positives. I need to assess now many valid positives > were attributable to the RBL matching before coming to any conclusions > about that.
However, the false negative rate for xpert has been surprisingly high, compared to the results I've seen with spamassassin here at home. High enough to prevent me from automatically forwarding messages not tagged as spam sent by non-subscribers. There have been several spam detector papers submitted to this years Usenix conference; I'm pretty confident that we'll have better tools available in the next couple of months. We might disable the RBL based rules in flagging spam; they do seem to have a rather high false-positive rate. Keith Packard XFree86 Core Team HP Cambridge Research Lab _______________________________________________ Xpert mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/xpert
