On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:29:49 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>> It doesn't need to do 100% filtering - it certainly does well enough,
>> though.  But you've decided it's "intractably difficult" so it's not
>> worth bothering with, even though it's very popular and lots of people
>> have great success with it.
>>
>> Which planet are you on again? ;)
> 
> Ah yes, the argumentum ad populum. You realise that *millions* of people
> use Internet Explorer, right? So that *must* mean it's the best web
> browser. :-P

False equivalency, my friend.  IE is the default browser installed in 
Windows.  Many people use that by default.

Firefox does not ship with AdBlock Pro installed.  People download it, 
install it, and use it successfully.  I happen to be one of those people.

You, instead, have assumed "it can't possibly work" and so haven't even 
tried it.

Now, given the empirical evidence of having used it and having it work or 
the *assumption* that it isn't going to work so why bother....I think the 
empirical evidence is going to work.

>>> In other news, I have yet to see a spam filter which actually filters
>>> out spam and nothing else. (Then again, I haven't searched extensively
>>> for one...)
>>
>> None of them make that claim.
> 
> And now I must ask which planet *you* are on. This is /the definition/
> of what a spam filter is. And, just like moisturising creams that are
> "guaranteed" to make you look 20 years younger, people make all sorts of
> completely unsubstantiated claims about spam filters.

I'm on Earth.

Spam filters work to a significant extent.  Again, empirical evidence.  
100% isn't necessary to declare success or failure.

You're declaring failure because 1 message in "n" (for sufficiently large 
values of 'n') gets through.  Fact is, spam filters aren't supposed to 
block all spam.  They're supposed to reduce it, and for most people, they 
do the job properly.

>> But by and large, spam filters do a pretty decent job.
> 
> By this I can only assume that you mean "the spam filters /which I have
> used/ do a pretty decent job". Because the spam filters that *I* have
> used all do a pitifully awful job.

Fair enough point.

> For example, my ISP filters all my incoming email. After 5 years, it has
> /still/ failed to realise that anything containing the words "free meds"
> or "PayPal" is spam. And it has also failed to realise that anything
> containing the word "Haskell" is ham. This, after my repeatedly marking
> the spam and ham for its "learning algorithm". Unfortunately, this
> program's idea of "learning" is to blacklist or whitelist each
> individual sender, each time I press a button. How pathetic.
> 
> My employer used a system called "barracuda" I believe, and that was
> similarly hopeless. In fairness, the genuine email we receive has
> several fairly unusual characteristics. Even so, people really shouldn't
> be receiving emails with viral attachments, or links to exploit sites,
> or those fake "delivery failure notification" emails, or...

Have you tried something like Spamassassin?

And yes, you do work in an industry where the normal triggers for spam 
might actually be legitimate business communications - as you work in the 
pharma industry IIRC.

That doesn't mean spam filters are useless.

You'll note that I didn't say *all* spam filters were wonderful and 
flawless.  I said that spam filtering generally works well.

Jim

Post a reply to this message