I skimmed the actual paper and wasn't very impressed. It uses theoretical models without any actual data to support its claim. The claim the paper actually prov

I skimmed the actual paper and wasn't very impressed. It uses theoretical models without any actual data to support its claim. The claim the paper actually proves is: If there is a technique that successfully weeds out false positives, then such a technique can be used profitably. Which is a far cry from their supposed claims, that the spammers are using bad grammar and "Nigeria" to weed out false positives. They basically proved a molehill and claimed a mountain.