LuKreme wrote:
On 13-Mar-2009, at 12:58, Linda Walsh wrote:
I get many emails addressed to internal sendmail 's.
123...@mydomain or 1abd56.ef7...@mydomain
(seem to fit a basic pattern but don't know how to specify the
pattern (or I don't have it right):
<(start of an email-address)>[0-9][
On 15-Mar-2009, at 02:29, decoder wrote:
I'm thinking that FPs and FNs are bayes problem anyway. This tool
need to concentrate on seeing just what rules hit and building off
that. I'd go so far to say that as far as SVM is concerned, there
is no such thing as a false postive or negative.
decoder wrote:
LuKreme wrote:
This is an excellent idea, but it also needs rule hits on ham, right?
You're right if you're saying that the method would work better if
there were more ham rules. From what I have seen in my experiments
however, the results are also very precise with the curr
LuKreme wrote:
I don't see any need for the model to be dynamic. Periodic
recalculation of it should be just fine. I bet even daily
reprocessing will prove to be over zealous. Weekly, perhaps even monthly.
This is what I think as well :)
I'm thinking that FPs and FNs are bayes problem anywa
LuKreme wrote:
This is an excellent idea, but it also needs rule hits on ham, right?
You're right if you're saying that the method would work better if there
were more ham rules. From what I have seen in my experiments however,
the results are also very precise with the current SA ruleset. Bu
