On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:26:35AM -0800, Keith Packard wrote: >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.
When I looked at the alternatives for our private lists earlier in the year, I found that spamassassin's performance was mixed for the type of traffic our lists were getting. That's why I'm using something else there. I haven't yet evaluated how well it has peformed for the xpert list traffic. >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. I've seen that there are different "spam" profiles for personal email and different types of mailing lists, and that those profiles are a constantly moving target. Those papers should be interesting. David -- David Dawes Release Engineer/Architect The XFree86 Project www.XFree86.org/~dawes _______________________________________________ Xpert mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/xpert
