On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 12:48:11 -0500
dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> I haven't done as much testing on this as I'd like, but I've gotten
> away from it, and wanted to get my thoughts in here before I forget
> them.
>
> I have a strong suspicion that SA's bayes implementation sucks.
>
> The two majo
* dar...@chaosreigns.com :
...
> One of my questions is, does it make sense to continue to maintain bayesian
> stuff within SA at all? Or should we drop it, and encourage people to run
> a pure bayesian classifier before SA (like spamprobe), then have rules that
> read the headers from those cla
On 11/09/2012 06:48 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
I haven't done as much testing on this as I'd like, but I've gotten away
from it, and wanted to get my thoughts in here before I forget them.
I have a strong suspicion that SA's bayes implementation sucks.
The two major problems, as I see th
I haven't done as much testing on this as I'd like, but I've gotten away
from it, and wanted to get my thoughts in here before I forget them.
I have a strong suspicion that SA's bayes implementation sucks.
The two major problems, as I see them:
1) Lack of learn-on-fail.
2) Lack of multi-word toke
