funsec mailing list archives
Re: Im lovin google spam filter
From: <michael.blanchard () emc com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 12:49:34 -0400
Just for the sake of argument alone, not that I doubt your findings by any means: Numbers can be skewed to behave in a manner that would prove anyone's point too... If we take 100 people on this list, have them all look in their backyards and report if there is any paper or plastic blowing around, I'll bet we can come up with a fairly high percentage of us that don't have any paper or plastic blowing around. I'll further say that I'll bet the number would be within a standard deviation of 4% error. So, if 96% of us don't have any paper or plastic blowing around in our yards, could we safely say that no-one litters? :-) Mike B Michael P. Blanchard Senior Security Engineer, CISSP, GCIH, CCSA-NGX, MCSE Office of Information Security & Risk Management EMC ² Corporation 32 Coslin Drive Southboro, MA 01772 -----Original Message----- From: funsec-bounces () linuxbox org [mailto:funsec-bounces () linuxbox org] On Behalf Of Rich Kulawiec Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:57 AM To: funsec Subject: Re: [funsec] Im lovin google spam filter On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 10:04:49AM -0400, Patrick Laverty wrote:
I just checked my spam box for gmail and see 1500 messages. A quick scan of the "From" and I saw zero false positive.
Alternatively: "I looked in my own back yard and there's no paper or plastic blowing around, therefore nobody litters." Meaningful tests of FP (and FN) rates require large sample sets (in the sense of number of messages and number of accounts); moreover, they require careful attention to the composition of those sample sets, both in terms of how the addresses are actively used, and how they're passively used (by spammers). They also require far more than a single snapshot; one day's sample is meaningless. They require more than casual analysis: human eyeballs are far too unreliable to accurately process that much data. And so on: this isn't an easy or quick measurement to make, even for those of us who have been studying the problem for a very long time. I've done all that, which is how I know that Gmail's FP (and FN, incidentally) classification performance is mediocre. ---rsk _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list. _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
Current thread:
- Im lovin google spam filter RandallM (Apr 05)
- Re: Im lovin google spam filter Rich Kulawiec (Apr 07)
- Message not available
- Re: Im lovin google spam filter Alex Eckelberry (Apr 07)
- Message not available
- Re: Im lovin google spam filter Rich Kulawiec (Apr 07)
- Re: Im lovin google spam filter michael.blanchard (Apr 07)
- Re: Im lovin google spam filter Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 07)
- Re: Im lovin google spam filter michael.blanchard (Apr 07)
- Re: Im lovin google spam filter Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 07)
- Re: Im lovin google spam filter michael.blanchard (Apr 07)
- Re: Im lovin google spam filter Alex Eckelberry (Apr 07)
- Re: Im lovin google spam filter Hubbard, Dan (Apr 07)
- Re: Im lovin google spam filter Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 07)
- Re: Im lovin google spam filter rsk () gsp org (Apr 08)
- Re: Im lovin google spam filter Joel Esler (Apr 08)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Im lovin google spam filter Alex Eckelberry (Apr 06)