Subject: RE: [Asrg] spamstones

From: "Eric D. Williams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 13:09:38 -0500

Dave,

There is a separate thread in process now on that exact topic:

[Asrg] Fwd: Returned mail: see transcript for details, and;
False Positive  -was- RE: [Asrg] Fwd: Returned mail: see transcript for details

-e

On Tuesday, April 01, 2003 12:07 PM, Dave Crocker [SMTP:[email-masked]] wrote:
> Matt,
> 
> 
> MS> Anti-Virus error rate is 0 FN's and 1 in 1 million FPs.
> MS> Anti-Spam error rate is about 1 in 1000 FPs based on detecting about
> MS> 95% of spam.
> 
> thanks!
> 
> hmmm. it occurs to me that a technical research group on spam might want
> to consider look to agree on standard methodology for deriving false
> negatives and false positives. this would allow everyone to compare
> mechanisms in an equivalent way.
> 
> given the nature of spam, and the nature of most technologies for
> detecting it, the determination of FNs and FPs is not automatically
> obvious.  that makes it a fertile opportunity for standardization.
> 
> 
> d/
> --
>  Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
>  Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg