On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 16:28 +0100, Marcin Krol wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > Do train false negatives. It does help Bayes, if you train "FN according
> > to Bayes", that is spam that has been caught, but got a low, ham-ish
> > Bayes score.
>
> It seems that I need to brush up on specifics of SA Bayes; so far I have
> used only DSPAM from among statistical filters.
Nah, I guess you just need to adjust your point of view. :)
We've specifically discussed Bayes here. So strip all the rules and
network tests, which still made the message correctly score as spam,
despite Bayes claiming different. The latter is important here.
Considering Bayes only -- if Bayes returned a score less than 0.5 it
looks like ham to it...
With a statical filter *only*, you now would train and re-classify that
mail, no? Do the same with Bayes in SA (regardless of other tests
overruling Bayes) -- at least, for those where SA did not auto-learn
anyway. How is that different from dspam?
guenther
--
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; }}}
