Spammer radhi

Arun Kumar Saha <arun.kumar.saha <at> gmail.com> writes:

Can the Statisticians here develop some good Statistical tool to stop this
Spamming keeping Type-I error almost zero?

As Bruce Schneier (surely among others) has pointed out, the difference
between security against natural risks (analogous to most statistical
problems) and security against attackers is that the attackers adapt
to avoid countermeasures. In the terminology of Hurlbert (1984), a classic
in ecological statistics, this is the difference between "non-demonic"
and "demonic" interventions; the tools of statistics are generally intended
to guard against non-demonic intervention only.

   Ben Bolker

Hello,

I believe that today's spam filters already use statistical tools, 
namely, non-parametric bayesian methods. This would mean that they can 
adapt to known attacks but are useless against new ones.

Merry Christmas,

Rui Barradas
Em 24-12-2012 15:57, Ben Bolker escreveu:

Arun Kumar Saha <arun.kumar.saha <at> gmail.com> writes:

Can the Statisticians here develop some good Statistical tool to stop this
Spamming keeping Type-I error almost zero?

   As Bruce Schneier (surely among others) has pointed out, the difference
between security against natural risks (analogous to most statistical
problems) and security against attackers is that the attackers adapt
to avoid countermeasures. In the terminology of Hurlbert (1984), a classic
in ecological statistics, this is the difference between "non-demonic"
and "demonic" interventions; the tools of statistics are generally intended
to guard against non-demonic intervention only.

    Ben Bolker

______________________________________________
R-help at r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.