5 ms·
This article is 17 years old ... I must be missing something. Why is it relevant right now?
by danesparza 7y ago
This article is 17 years old ... I must be missing something. Why is it relevant right now?
- megous 7y agoThe technique still works and works excepionally well. I only use a bayes filter (I use bogofilter) and out of some 15k spam e-mails and 150k ham e-mails I received in the last 9 months or so, I've seen like ~10 false negatives and around the same number of false positives. That's way better than gmail can ever dream of, where I always had issues with automated messages ending up in spam. With bogofilter, the training is always explicit, and otherwise the model doesn't change, so I can be sure that when my automated messages pass, they will always pass, and don't randomly stop passing "just because". I started with a big archive (around 100k msgs each) of SPAM and HAM for the initial training. I learned from the early days of using e-mail to archive my spam, for the eventual training, since my first Linux job involved setting up a DSPAM installation.
- jwilk 7y agoHN has an obsession about Paul Graham.
- QuercusMax 7y agoI mean, this is literally Paul Graham's site.