> What does scale have to do with it, am I missing something? The person I replied to said they can identify spam with 90% accuracy with a glance, my point was

> What does scale have to do with it, am I missing something? The person I replied to said they can identify spam with 90% accuracy with a glance, my point was that it's abysmal as accuracy. Even orders of magnitude better it'd still be bad. > Wouldn’t a spam detection rate of 99.999% mean that only every 100000th spam mail would get through on an account basis, how’s that terrible? I didn't specify if it's per-account or a false positive rate, it's also actually not relevant to the point I'm trying to make. When you receive billions of letters a month small errors start to matter and they're doing a better job than the person I replied to thinks they do.