http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r10508321 en Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:50:19 EDT Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:50:19 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10508321 B : Bayesian filters would catch that kind of junk at over 99%, as long as they had any ham at all.

But you make a very good point; I don't know what he's getting 'stuffed' with, and didn't really read that carefully.

-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10508321 Mon, 14 Jun 2004 16:21:31 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10507652 Samwoo : wait what does he consider spam?
if i send him 5 emails that contain gibberish i bet gmail won't filter it.
i mean if people are sending him gibberish and random emails i bet that gmail cant filter it...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10507652 Mon, 14 Jun 2004 14:55:49 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10507129 B :
First, I'm impressed by how fast »gmail.prattboy.net/ loads, especially considering the publicity.

Second, what's with the 40-50% GMail spam filter accuracy rating?

Perhaps it's because he's purposely stuffing it with spam and little ham, but 50% is just abysmal performance for ANY spam filter...

-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10507129 Mon, 14 Jun 2004 13:52:34 EDT