"Jason R. Mastaler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > User Witr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The reason I wanted to do in in the middle of the TMDA pipeline is > > that the (potentially expensive) classification operation could be > > avoided in all but the relatively few cases where confirmation was > > indicated (about 10% of the time for me). > The success of the Bayesian technique that Paul Graham describes > depends on a rich history of both spam and non-spam messages being > assembled. Thus, you'd want it to see all your mail, not just 10% of > it. Good point, but I'm afraid that Paul Graham's technique also relies on having a "delete-as-spam" button, in addition to an ordinary "delete" button. So, if it was filter-then-TMDA, a problem could be that TMDA saved you from seeing the incoming spam. You would never hit the delete-as-spam button, and thus you would never improve the filter. Worse, it might even be the case that the filter would assume, since you never selected delete-as-spam, that the spam that got through wasn't even spam. The filter might get worse and worse... Does this make sense? I guess you could periodically "reseed" your filter's repositories of spam and non-spam, but that could cause other problems that Paul mentions in his article. - Sam _____________________________________________ tmda-users mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users
