[spambayes-dev] Another incremental training idea...

[Kenny Pitt]

Tim Peters wrote:
> [Tim, sez his major reduction in total spam over the last couple
>  months is entirely due to less spam on his MSN dialup account]
> 
> [Skip Montanaro]
>> Ask them if they began using SpamBayes. <wink>
> 
> Heh.  I don't think so.  Remember the link posted here to an article
> about the spam filter in Outlook 2003?  The one that doesn't learn,
> and is identical for all Outlook 2003 users?  This is "typical
> Microsoft", IMO: the first release of a thing is crap, but while
> everyone else is distracted with laughter, they relentlessly improve
> the thing.  Between MSN and Hotmail, Microsoft has an inconceivably
> large collection of real-life data to work with, and I expect they're
> finally learning from it.

As I understood the article, the Outlook 2003 filter is actually a very
well-trained Bayesian-type filter, and the MSN and Hotmail message flow
almost certainly provided the data for that.  The problem with the
Outlook filter is that it isn't user-trainable.  I wonder if Microsoft
decided not to include that to avoid the accuracy problems that we often
see reported when users mis-train the filter.  Given their average user
base, any accuracy issues would no doubt be blamed on Microsoft and not
user error.

Rumor has it that the MSN Explorer mail reading interface for MSN dialup
accounts does, in fact, support user training.  Can you confirm or deny?

> ... What I remain confused about is how they
> intend to make Big Bux off it. 

It may not be anything more complicated than stemming the tide of users
choosing or switching to other ISP's that claim to provide better spam
filtering.  Then again, who can fathom the mind of the Microsoft
machine? <wink>

-- 
Kenny Pitt