-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:16:19 -0400 (EDT), Daniel T. Staal wrote:
>On Mon, October 16, 2006 3:07 pm, Marc Perkel said: >> What need to be done with messages that are spam is to only learn the >> headers and not the body of the message. What needs to be done is some >> detection of deliberate bayes poisoning and removal of the poison before >> larning. > >In all honesty: Why? Bayes, by design, handles that by learning any of >the words that are preferentially in spam or ham, and tossing the rest. >It is highly unlikely that their attempts at poisoning the database are >going to do anything other than give them a *higher* spam score, and not >affecting your ham much or at all. > >Even if you could decide which words would be bayes-poison, it would vary >by each email and each user/database. > >Ignore it. Let Bayes do what it is supposed to do. The only thing I've >seen that is at all effective against SA's Bayes implementation is empty >messages. Which are pretty useless, and screenable with other rules. > >Daniel T. Staal After a week of running FuzzyOCR I have to agree. I take back my original query :-) Everything seems to be perfectly fine with Bayes. Processing some 100k messages a day. Frank Bures, Dept. of Chemistry, University of Toronto, M5S 3H6 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.chem.utoronto.ca PGP public key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=index&search=Frank+Bures -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.0 OS/2 for non-commercial use Comment: PGP 5.0 for OS/2 Charset: cp850 wj8DBQFFNMmrih0Xdz1+w+wRAjGXAJsErRRwkrV9OSDUo8QkrKVYJUtIugCfbolD v+79zSpDu27WPsxtD0ohHqs= =cVPK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
