On 2/20/2014 2:09 PM, Daniel Staal wrote:
--As of February 20, 2014 1:56:18 PM -0500, Kevin A. McGrail is
alleged to have said:
People have hard_coded BAYES_999 entries as well. I recommend
forwarding the announcement from John to the other mailing lists you are
aware of these discussions.
--As of February 20, 2014 1:56:18 PM -0500, Kevin A. McGrail is alleged to
have said:
People have hard_coded BAYES_999 entries as well. I recommend
forwarding the announcement from John to the other mailing lists you are
aware of these discussions.
--As for the rest, it is mine.
I intend t
On 2/20/2014 1:31 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Daniel Staal wrote:
--As of February 20, 2014 9:23:56 AM -0800, John Hardin is alleged to
have said:
BAYES_99 is being reverted to its original definition and BAYES_999 is
being converted to an overlapping additive rule that add
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Daniel Staal wrote:
--As of February 20, 2014 9:23:56 AM -0800, John Hardin is alleged to have
said:
BAYES_99 is being reverted to its original definition and BAYES_999 is
being converted to an overlapping additive rule that adds some more
points to BAYES_99 for the ve
--As of February 20, 2014 9:23:56 AM -0800, John Hardin is alleged to have
said:
BAYES_99 is being reverted to its original definition and BAYES_999 is
being converted to an overlapping additive rule that adds some more
points to BAYES_99 for the very top end of Bayes score.
If you have locall
On 2/20/14 11:23 AM, "John Hardin" wrote:
>BAYES_99 is being reverted to its original definition and BAYES_999 is
>being converted to an overlapping additive rule that adds some more points
>to BAYES_99 for the very top end of Bayes score.
>This should go out within the next couple of rule upd
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014, Dave Pooser wrote:
BAYES_99 used to hit for emails that the naive Bayesian
classifier identified as 99% to 100% spam.
BAYES_99 is now split into two rules to give it finer gradient on scores
for different percentages:
BAYES_99 99% to 99.9%
BAYES_999 99.9% to 100%
It woul
On 2/19/2014 9:37 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 2/18/2014 8:49 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 2/18/2014 6:05 PM, Amir Caspi wrote:
On Feb 18, 2014, at 3:58 PM, John Hardin wrote:
Is there some reason the Bayes scores can't/shouldn't be static?
Indeed, I am wondering why Bayes would be auto-scor
On 2/18/2014 8:49 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 2/18/2014 6:05 PM, Amir Caspi wrote:
On Feb 18, 2014, at 3:58 PM, John Hardin wrote:
Is there some reason the Bayes scores can't/shouldn't be static?
Indeed, I am wondering why Bayes would be auto-scored at all. By definition,
Bayes high scor
On 2/18/14 8:52 PM, "Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
>I am not disagreeing it would have been an interesting approach but the
>rules were promoted accidentally to begin with. I'm just doing triage
>to get things functional right now
Totally understand, and I didn't mean to whinge. The bright side is i
On 2/18/2014 5:54 PM, Dave Pooser wrote:
I use several meta rules that include BAYES_99 and now I'm having to
go rewrite those rules to include (BAYES_99 || BAYES_999).
Which raises the question-- is there a performance hit for making meta
rules include other meta rules? That is:
is
meta_DP
On 2/18/2014 5:44 PM, Dave Pooser wrote:
BAYES_99 used to hit for emails that the naive Bayesian
classifier identified as 99% to 100% spam.
BAYES_99 is now split into two rules to give it finer gradient on scores
for different percentages:
BAYES_99 99% to 99.9%
BAYES_999 99.9% to 100%
It would
On 2/18/2014 6:05 PM, Amir Caspi wrote:
On Feb 18, 2014, at 3:58 PM, John Hardin wrote:
Is there some reason the Bayes scores can't/shouldn't be static?
Indeed, I am wondering why Bayes would be auto-scored at all. By definition,
Bayes high scores should match only on spam, low scores should
On 2/18/2014 5:58 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014, Dave Pooser wrote:
BAYES_99 used to hit for emails that the naive Bayesian
classifier identified as 99% to 100% spam.
BAYES_99 is now split into two rules to give it finer gradient on
scores
for different percentages:
BAYES_99 99
On Feb 18, 2014, at 3:58 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>
> Is there some reason the Bayes scores can't/shouldn't be static?
>
Indeed, I am wondering why Bayes would be auto-scored at all. By definition,
Bayes high scores should match only on spam, low scores should match only on
ham. That's not perf
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014, Dave Pooser wrote:
BAYES_99 used to hit for emails that the naive Bayesian
classifier identified as 99% to 100% spam.
BAYES_99 is now split into two rules to give it finer gradient on scores
for different percentages:
BAYES_99 99% to 99.9%
BAYES_999 99.9% to 100%
It woul
>It would make my life a lot easier if instead BAYES_999 were an additional
>rule.
That is, if BAYES_999 fired *in addition to* BAYES_99.
> I use several meta rules that include BAYES_99 and now I'm having to
>go rewrite those rules to include (BAYES_99 || BAYES_999).
Which raises the question--
>BAYES_99 used to hit for emails that the naive Bayesian
>classifier identified as 99% to 100% spam.
>
>BAYES_99 is now split into two rules to give it finer gradient on scores
>for different percentages:
>
>BAYES_99 99% to 99.9%
>BAYES_999 99.9% to 100%
It would make my life a lot easier if inste
On 2/17/2014 4:12 PM, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:05:23 -0500
"Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
Kevin> BAYES_999 is just a finer gradient on BAYES_99 allowing for a
Kevin> higher score on the top .001% of Bayes hits.
Thanks for your reply. Could you explain in a bit more detail what
"
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:05:23 -0500
"Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
Kevin> BAYES_999 is just a finer gradient on BAYES_99 allowing for a
Kevin> higher score on the top .001% of Bayes hits.
Thanks for your reply. Could you explain in a bit more detail what
"gradient on top" (of another rule) means? It
On 2/17/2014 3:59 PM, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
Hello. This is the first time SA is giving me enough trouble that I
need to ask for help. I hope I get this right.
I observed a marked increase in false negatives in the last few weeks.
There have definitely been some increases in the past few weeks b
Hello. This is the first time SA is giving me enough trouble that I
need to ask for help. I hope I get this right.
I observed a marked increase in false negatives in the last few weeks.
Only today I had enough sense to look at the detailed scores. And, all
the escaped spams have hit the BAYES_9
22 matches
Mail list logo
