>> Imagine if we engineered all things in real life by first expending effort >> publishing all the ways not to engineer them. > >Umm.. We don't. I believe that when I see more posts in real engineering threads than I see posts in this thread. >On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 19:25:22 +0800, Shelby Moore said: >> Amazing that Vernon says working on spam is "Kook"y, yet that is exactly >what he does (DCC). > >No.. Yes. For one thing Vernon doesn't understand the concept of dynamic set theory and entropy as it applies to mapping IPs to spam. That statement he made convinced me neither he or you have fully explored all the possibilities. Neither of you still haven't sent any links to prior art to prove your assertion that I am rehashing. You are all hot air and no facts. > What he *said* was "totally disregarding the things others have already >tried is kooky". The problem is he thinks he knows what other people are proposing but he doesn't understand it well enough to know it is different that what has been tried already. And I doubt either of you have any clue about the mathematical ways it is different. So before you write a master set of rules, maybe you should listen and learn a little more. >Which line item from his note is the DCC in violation of? Not DCC, but him as creator of DCC. The very hippocritical fact that he publishes such a document that is in violation of the core philosophy of the document, which is in essense "don't think you know everything, unless you do, and you probably don't". Especially the last one he added, which he got from one Keith Moore emailed about me: "you're certain none of the preceding apply to you or you see nothing wrong in some of the" He is either "certain" or is saying he is a Kook. He fell right into his own trap. >> 2. Vernon wrote, "...it is impossible, because no two people (or at least >> organizations) think the same streams of bulk mail are solicited and >> unsolicited.". I can easily find 2 streams that 2 people/orgs can agree are >> solicited and unsolicited. If you give me 2 streams and 2 people/org at >> random, then I can not guarantee every time (but eventually and never > >Right. You can't guarantee *every time* for 2 people at random. That's his >point exactly. He did not write "every time". He wrote "no". "no" means none or empty set. Learn about set theory. Also you missed the deeper point, but that is to be expected... >Any scheme that requires any 2 random people to come up with the same answer on >this judgment call *will* break with either a false positive or false >negative for each >object in the stream there's a disagreement on. Again you obviously don't have the mathematical background or don't know how to apply it. I am sure that many people said that nuclear bomb could not be created, that the earth was flat, etc... >> 4. "A fundamental problem is that spam is unsolicited bulk mail, and not IP >> addresses...no mater how highly coorelated with spam.". The first part is >> true, the second part is not because we don't live in 3 dimensions. I >will not >> tell you why beyond that, but I know why. > >Actually, 3 dimensions has absolutely nothing to do with it. You are way off. You did not even realize I was talking about the lack of time dimension, so you very likely still have no clue what I really mean. > And the fact >that you >think it does indicates that you really don't understand the difference there. I doubt you understand how entropy applies to spam. And I doubt any of your prior art has ever looked it from that perspective. >The real problem is that there exists a non-empty subset of the IP address >space for which the predicate '((sends spam) XOR (sends non-spam)) ' is zero, >even for an actual SMTP source. You are still stuck in binary logic. You seem to be very far behind where my thought process is on spam. Shelby Moore http://AntiViotic.com