Re: murphy is listed on spamcop
Russell Coker <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Friday 07 January 2005 06:01, Thomas Bushnell BSG <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Russell Coker <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > You cannot justify the bad consequences your actions just by saying
> > that they are the only way to get the good goals you desire.
> The problem with spam filtering is that it's always a matter of trade-offs.
> If there is too much spam then when deleting all the spam you will
> accidentally delete some non-spam.
Yes, but you have to actually describe the trade-offs, and
importantly, who the trade-offs effect and what they can do to fix
Just saying "hey, some false positives are the price of success" is no
argument, and that's what you said. "Success" hasn't been achieved if
you are trading one failure for another; perhaps things are better,
but you'll have to say exactly how.
Also important is who is making the trade-offs, and on behalf of
whom. When the costs get shunted on to other people, and you capture
all the benefits yourself, it's very easy to assume the trade-offs
must be worth it. Much different is if you have a system where you
need the consent of those other people before you start trading them