One of the reasons I sometimes refer to Safe Senders is that there is a misconception, I believe, that with enough Safe Senders you can become more aggressive on spam. This might sound good in theory but it doesn't work in practice. In fact, it works so infrequently that I say that it is one of the myths of spam filtering. I call this the Kniz (pronounced neese) paradox. The myth says that if you flag all your good senders as safe senders, you can make your existing antispam rule set more aggressive. That is to say, i... lire la suite
Lien du post: http://blogs.msdn.com/tzink/archive/2008/04/05/the-kniz-paradox.aspx
By contrast, the Kniz paradox is more reflective of reality. If you become more aggressive on spam, what actually happens is that you mark mail you previously marked as spam... as spam. You catch marginally more spam that wouldn't have caught before, but not a significant amount. However, you also flag much, much more good mail as false positives. You may think you have safelisted enough good senders, but there's always someone else. Well, you say, I'll just safelist everyone who I want to talk to and be really aggressive on spam. To which I reply: why even bother having a spam filter if you're only going to talk to the people you know you want to talk to? Just accept only mail from everyone in your address book. Thus, the Kniz paradox states that trying to become more aggressive on spam (with an existing rule set) at the expense of a few false positives doesn't work. In fact, the opposite occurs; you get a little more spam and a lot more false positives.
Cherry Pomegranate Smoothie - Paradox of Priorities
"We do not yet have a full explanation for the 'Asian paradox,' which refers to the very low incidence of both heart disease and cancer in Asia, even though consumption of cigarettes is greater than in most other countries," said Bauer Sumpio, M.D., professor and Chief of Vascular Surgery in the Department of Surgery. "But we now have some theories."
Daniel Henninger points out a rather ridiculous paradox in the polls of American voters. While some 80% believe their personal lives are on track and are satisfied with those lives, a full 70% also believe that the nation is headed in the wrong direction. This is the great paradox heading into the elections - one that has actually existed for all the years the United States has existed. Explanations for this paradox would fill screen after screen of comments on Internet blogs, written no doubt by the 16% who can never be satisfied with "how things are going." Sample: It's the 46 million uninsured, stupid!
S'il n'est pas le plus connu des editeurs de jeux video, Paradox a su convaincre un certain nombre de joueurs avec des titres d'une richesse rarement egalee. Fer de lance de son catalogue, la serie Europa [...]
In a recent special issue of Archeological Dialogues anthropologist Tim Ingold raises some very interesting issues about the recent theoretical emphasis on materiality. He takes as a starting point for his essay “Materials against materiality” the paradox that the ever-growing literature on materiality and material culture rarely has anything to say about materials, i.e. about the actual components of the material world. In fact, he notes that most materiality studies are more concerned with the ruminations of philosophers and theorists than they are with the tangible stuffs that craftsmen work with. He recounts with dismay a conference session on materiality, which were, as he writes:
La societe francaise Blue Label vient de trouver un accord Paradox Interactive pour la distribution des jeux de l'editeur...
Encore peu connus dans l'Hexagone, les Suedois de Paradox Interactive viennent de signer avec un acteur francais, Blue Label Entertainment. L'accord qui lient maintenant les deux parties portent sur la [...]
Encore peu connus dans l'Hexagone, les Suedois de Paradox Interactive viennent de signer avec un acteur francais, Blue Label Entertainment. L'accord qui lient maintenant les deux parties portent sur la [...]