Pierre Thomson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > I'm not saying Bayes isn't working most of the time, but it > does seem possible to craft sentences that skew it strongly > towards ham.
Oh, and I should clarify that I don't think it's as much of a problem for SA as for "pure bayes" solutions. Since SA uses a variable number of OTHER rules for detecting spammish characteristics, I find that the combination is quite effective. Other rules detect the spam, those are fed into sa-learn, and eventually bayes figures out that other traits mark those messages. At least based on my small setup. > The faked sentences in the original posting > contained plenty of hammish words, but there were a few that > would eventually end up as spam markers with training. For > example, the improperly hyphenated "calms-down" and > "stands-still", as well as "caw" and "binocycles". Again, as long as I don't start subscribing to literary lists, I think I'm safe with SA. :) One of the reasons I've been going through all the gyrations with procmail, antivirus and SA is to try running a couple head-to-head. I hope to configure bogofilter and a couple of other bayes-only tools and run them in parallel. - Bob
