On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Gorm Jensen wrote:
> Bayes is working very well for me, but I am concerned about poisoning the
> database with extraneous, obfuscating words that many spam messages contain.
>
> A few postings to this list say that there is no problem, but I don't want
> to spoil a good thing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Gorm,
Saturday, November 29, 2003, 1:52:13 PM, you wrote:
GJ> Bayes is working very well for me, but I am concerned about poisoning
GJ> the database with extraneous, obfuscating words that many spam
GJ> messages contain.
I used to be concerned
Gorm Jensen said:
> Bayes is working very well for me, but I am concerned about poisoning the
> database with extraneous, obfuscating words that many spam messages
> contain.
>
> A few postings to this list say that there is no problem, but I don't want
> to spoil a good thing. Are there some rule
Bayes is working very well for me, but I am concerned about poisoning the
database with extraneous, obfuscating words that many spam messages contain.
A few postings to this list say that there is no problem, but I don't want
to spoil a good thing. Are there some rules of thumb on what to sa-lear
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 10:07:56AM -0500, Tom Meunier wrote:
> What to do with a spam that includes this garbage at the bottom, in a hidden font?
> Bayes freaked, I'm kinda glad it didn't auto-learn it. I'd rather have the false
> negative than that. (Only snipped the Bayes poison from the mai
What to do with a spam that includes this garbage at the bottom, in a hidden font?
Bayes freaked, I'm kinda glad it didn't auto-learn it. I'd rather have the false
negative than that. (Only snipped the Bayes poison from the mail, I think maybe
Mozilla TBird put all the = in there.)
-tom
---
