On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 15:13 +0100, Marcin Krol wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > Razor is quite good, too. Also Pyzor, though it requires much more
> > resources.
>
> See, my friend who works at a hosting company didn't find Razor to be
> much improvement. Perhaps he misconfigured it or smth?
That's pretty much just another way of saying, what you snipped from my
post. ;) "Results and effectiveness vary, everyone's spam is
different." Yes, that means it might work much better for you. Did you
try it?
> >I also recommend the iXhash plugin, which is another digest
> > test that kicks some serious butt.
>
> Now you're talking. :-)
> >Did you manually (initially) train it
> > with your collected ham and recent (not older than 3 months) spam?
>
> No, I just waited until default 200 hams and 200 spams kicked it in. As
> I mentioned elsewhere, I get a weird effect of correct positives, but
> relatively many false negatives from Bayes rules.
I still recommend initial training, to give Bayes a good kick-start.
--
char *t="[EMAIL PROTECTED]";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
