3 ms·
maybe, but you have to start with a better definition of spam. Currently, you're describing it as "something that you wouldn't want to read" where even a fellow
by haimez 10y ago
maybe, but you have to start with a better definition of spam. Currently, you're describing it as "something that you wouldn't want to read" where even a fellow human might not hit the mark 100% of the time.
Machine learning requires large data sets and training, and mushy targets like your inbox are tricky because it's hard to tell a computer what its score was on a given attempt- even with human scoring.
- tempestn 10y agoTo clarify, I'm not expecting something to identify the exact messages I'd want to read. But if it could take the 3000 messages in my spam folder, and separate out 500 "probably spam" from 2500 "definitely spam", it would cut my manual spam-scanning time down significantly.
- haimez 10y agoYou need a deterministic way to explain to the machine how to score itself, which is the problem. If a precise win condition exists without human intervention, then the software can iterate on itself.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- ikeboy 10y agoCan you identify the top 5-10 keywords in spam that never appear in legitimate emails, and set up a filter to discard those immediately or move them somewhere else?
- haimez 10y agoWelcome to the arms race.