> Personally I feel neural networks are overkill for this sort of thing. > You're looking for keywords, so I think you're going to need a neuron for > every possible word. It might work, but I think just making some rules > manually is easier. You already list a few things you could filter on. > > How many *different* mails are in that bunch of 1869? That's a pretty big > set, it's at least cool to have a nice training set for things like this :). > > I haven't looked at neural nets for information filtering much, but > the paper at http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/oard94neural.html (Neural Networks > in Information Filtering and Retrieval, from 1994) is a list of references > to papers about the subject that you may find interesting (you can get the > paper in a number of formats at the top right of the page). There are some > references to Usenet filtering with neural networks. > > -- > Remco Gerlich Maybe the best method is to create a user-expandable list of mildly configurable filters, and use a genetic algorithm or neural net to decide what filters (and the configeration of each filter) to use. Kind of mixing an Expert System with a genetic algorithm or neural net. The thing is, as these tools evolve, the spammers would look for new ways to trick them, so you're going to need continuous training. E.g. Spammers may start sending mail with all lowercase in the subject .... *thinks for a minute* .... naaaaahhhhhh. Joal Heagney/AncientHart
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4