Differences between revisions 2 and 3
Revision 2 as of 2004-10-27 16:39:53
Size: 730
Editor: DavidForrest
Comment:
Revision 3 as of 2009-09-20 23:16:41
Size: 732
Editor: localhost
Comment: converted to 1.6 markup
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 3: Line 3:
[http://plg.uwaterloo.ca/~gvcormac/spamcormack.html This paper], by Gordon Cormack and Thomas Lynam of the University of Waterloo, details tests performed to measure accuracy rates of various open-source spam filters. [[http://plg.uwaterloo.ca/~gvcormac/spamcormack.html|This paper]], by Gordon Cormack and Thomas Lynam of the University of Waterloo, details tests performed to measure accuracy rates of various open-source spam filters.

How Accurate is SpamAssassin's Bayes implementation?

This paper, by Gordon Cormack and Thomas Lynam of the University of Waterloo, details tests performed to measure accuracy rates of various open-source spam filters.

It compares the various modes of using SpamAssassin's Bayes implementation, then compares SpamAssassin's Bayes against other popular open source pure-learning spam filters (Bogofilter, Spambayes, SpamProbe, DSPAM, and CRM-114). SpamAssassin consistently does well, and is among the lowest in false positives (as of the July 1 2004 revision).

See page 12, 'Classification Performance - Pure Learning Filters', in particular.


CategoryBayes

BayesAccuracy (last edited 2009-09-20 23:16:41 by localhost)