On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 01:21:18PM -0700, Blars Blarson scribbled: > In article <[🔎] 20040510122720.GA3461@beowulf.thanes.org> grendel@debian.org writes: > >Both dspam and crm114 boast over 99% > >accuracy in spotting spam, now that would be really neat if we had that > >level of protection around here. > > 99% isn't good enough. That's about what the current spamassassin > setup on lists.debain.org is doing, and all the complaints are about. Quoting the DSPAM page: --- QUOTE --- DSPAM (as in De-Spam) is an extremely scalable, open-source statistical hybrid anti-spam filter. While most commercial solutions only provide a mere 95% accuracy (1 error in 20), a majority of DSPAM users frequently see between 99.95% (1 error in 2000) all the way up to 99.985% (1 error in 7000). DSPAM is currently effective as both a server-side agent for UNIX email servers and a developer's library for mail clients, other anti-spam tools, and similar projects requiring drop-in spam filtering. DSPAM has been implemented on many large and small scale systems with the largest systems being reported at about 125,000 mailboxes. --- QUOTE --- Quoting the crm114 page: --- QUOTE --- I measured my own accuracy to be around 99.84%, by classifying the same set of about 3000 messages twice over a period of about a week, reading each message from the top until I feel "confident" of the message status, (one message per screen unless I want more than one screen to decide on a message.) and doing the classification in small batches with plenty of breaks and other office tasks to avoid fatigue. Then I diff()ed the two passes to generate a result. Assuming I never duplicate the same mistake, I, as an unassisted human, under nearly optimal conditions, am 99.84% accurate.). Current filtering speed is about 120 kbyte/sec for a moderate (P-iii 1.4 GHz) mailserver. Old News: New hackery gives us a tremendous speedup- we're now running about 4 times faster than SpamAssassin while still retaining our high ( better than 99.9% ) accuracy after training. From Sep. 1 through 14 2003, I had ZERO errors on over 2500 emails on my live incoming email stream. Old News Flash: For the month of Nov 2002 : accuracy is now over 99.9% on my live incoming email mix. That's 5849 messages, 1931 spam and 3914 nonspam, and only 4 spams got through. --- QUOTE --- And, no, I haven't tested them myself (yet) but I have no reason not to believe what the authors of the programs say about their performance and accuracy. > If you can't show less than 0.1% false negatives and 0.01% false > positivies, it isn't worth bothering to try switching. Even if you don't have to spend $$$ for new hardware? For me it is a benefit if you upgrade some software, keep the cash, and achieve at least the same efficiency/accuracy. But I might be wrong, of course regards, marek
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature