From: "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
One is
from my local congressman. I figure if I include his junk phone calls
in my phone spam complaints (to him) the email should also be spam. I
doubt I'll white list him. He and I don't agree much. I am much too
libertarian for his Republican stance. If he'd s
From: "Michael Monnerie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
67 SPAMs are 5-9.99 points,
OK, for a record with regards to spam and ham I have had four come
through between 5 and 7.99 points out of about 1600 messages in my
personal mail buckets. Two were from "always-on" which I signed up
for when Powell the
Incidentally, the FAQ answer for "HowScoresAreAssigned" on the SA wiki
is out of date.
On Montag, 1. Mai 2006 17:51 Matt Kettler wrote:
> Looking at my own current real-world maillogs, BAYES_99 matched 6,643
> messages last week. Of those, only 24 had total scores under 9.0.
> (with BAYES_99 scoring 3.5, it would take a message with a total
> score of less than 8.5 to drop below the
From: "Bowie Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Matt Kettler wrote:
Bowie Bailey wrote:
>
> The Bayes rules are not individual unrelated rules. Bayes is a
> series of rules indicating a range of probability that a message is
> spam or ham. You can argue over the exact scoring, but I can't see
> an
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bowie Bailey wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
It is perfectly reasonable to assume that most of the mail matching
BAYES_99 also matches a large number of the stock spam rules that SA
comes with. These highly-obvious mails are the model after which
most SA rul
From: "Bowie Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jdow wrote:
From: "Bart Schaefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On 4/29/06, Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In SA 3.1.0 they did force-fix the scores of the bayes rules,
> > particularly the high-end. The perceptron assigned BAYES_99 a
> > score
Matt Kettler wrote:
> Bowie Bailey wrote:
> >
> > The Bayes rules are not individual unrelated rules. Bayes is a
> > series of rules indicating a range of probability that a message is
> > spam or ham. You can argue over the exact scoring, but I can't see
> > any reason to score BAYES_99 lower t
Bowie Bailey wrote:
> Matt Kettler wrote:
>> It is perfectly reasonable to assume that most of the mail matching
>> BAYES_99 also matches a large number of the stock spam rules that SA
>> comes with. These highly-obvious mails are the model after which
>> most SA rules are made in the first place.
jdow wrote:
> From: "Bart Schaefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > On 4/29/06, Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > In SA 3.1.0 they did force-fix the scores of the bayes rules,
> > > particularly the high-end. The perceptron assigned BAYES_99 a
> > > score of 1.89 in the 3.1.0 mass-check ru
From: "Bart Schaefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 4/29/06, Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In SA 3.1.0 they did force-fix the scores of the bayes rules,
particularly the high-end. The perceptron assigned BAYES_99 a score of
1.89 in the 3.1.0 mass-check run. The devs jacked it up to 3.50.
Th
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bart Schaefer wrote:
On 4/29/06, Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Besides.. If you want to make a mathematics based argument against me,
start by explaining how the perceptron mathematically is flawed. It
assigned the original score based on real
On 4/29/06, Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In SA 3.1.0 they did force-fix the scores of the bayes rules,
particularly the high-end. The perceptron assigned BAYES_99 a score of
1.89 in the 3.1.0 mass-check run. The devs jacked it up to 3.50.
That does make me wonder if:
1) When BAYE
Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On 4/29/06, Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Besides.. If you want to make a mathematics based argument against me,
>> start by explaining how the perceptron mathematically is flawed. It
>> assigned the original score based on real-world data.
>
> Did it? I thought
14 matches
Mail list logo
