Perry E. Metzger wrote: >Frank Solensky <fsolensky@PREMONITIA.COM> writes: > > >>Just posted on slashdot: a Bayesian approach to the problem that reports >>to have rates of 0.5% on false positives and 0% false negative: >> >>http://www.paulgraham.com/spam.html >> >> > >The problem is that, naturally, the spammers will start running the >tool over their spam before sending it and tweaking it until it >passes. This has happened for previous techniques. > > That would be less somewhat useful in this case, though, since each user has their own table of keywords. -- /===========================================\ |John Stracke |jstracke@centivinc.com | |Principal Engineer|http://www.centivinc.com| |Centiv |My opinions are my own. | |===========================================| |"Who died and made you king?" "My father." | \===========================================/