On Fri, 13 Jan 2017, Bill Cole wrote:
On 10 Jan 2017, at 10:55, Michael B Allen wrote:
bayes_file_mode 0777
Don't do that. Ever. It is not necessary, despite having been propagated
widely as a supposed solution for system-wide Bayes permission issues. The
clear indicator that whoever devis
On 10 Jan 2017, at 10:55, Michael B Allen wrote:
bayes_file_mode 0777
Don't do that. Ever. It is not necessary, despite having been propagated
widely as a supposed solution for system-wide Bayes permission issues.
The clear indicator that whoever devised that was flailing in sheer
ignorance
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 3:33 AM, Tom Hendrikx wrote:
>
>
> On 10-01-17 07:07, Michael B Allen wrote:
>> If I understand correctly, the BAYES_X tags add a value corresponding
>> to the X value. So BAYES_99 is basically adding 0.99 to the spam
>> score?
>
> This is incorrect. The number in the tag o
On 10-01-17 07:07, Michael B Allen wrote:
> If I understand correctly, the BAYES_X tags add a value corresponding
> to the X value. So BAYES_99 is basically adding 0.99 to the spam
> score?
This is incorrect. The number in the tag only corresponds with the
result of the bayesian classification.
If I understand correctly, the BAYES_X tags add a value corresponding
to the X value. So BAYES_99 is basically adding 0.99 to the spam
score?
Ideally I feel it should be possible to scale this value such as by
using simple multiplication or even exponentially.
Is it possible to increase the score
