[lug] Stopping the New Generation of Spam

[Collins Richey]

On 12/3/06, Daniel Webb <lists at danielwebb.us> wrote:

> Have they ever mentioned their false-positive rate for the ones classified as
> spam?  I imagine they're fairly good, but that would bother me.  Back when I
> was using a spam tagger, I got complacent because it was so good (this the
> early days before spammers got wise to them) and started just deleting them
> without looking at them.  Of course, I found out later that one of the ones I
> deleted was important and I missed out.  If you have to look at the messages
> individually anyway then what's the point?
>
> Should people send important messages by email?  No.  Do they sometimes?  Yes.
>

I don't know about statistics, but I have seen extremely few false
positives. Once about 3 months ago, google took exception to a few
mailing list items for BLUG, but once I marked them as not spam, the
problem went away. Since then I only check occasionally, and I haven't
seen any more false positives.

You pays you money (zippo), and you takes you chances.

-- 
Collins Richey
     If you fill your heart with regrets of yesterday and the worries
     of tomorrow, you have no today to be thankful for.