----- "Clunk Werclick" <mailbacku...@googlemail.com> wrote:
| On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 11:46 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: | > > > On 12-Sep-2009, at 10:27, Clunk Werclick wrote: | > > > > I disagree. It can do as much harm as good. My own view and | > > > > observation from the past have rendered it pointless in my | context. It | > > > > adds latency, is easily poisoned and rarely makes much | difference to | > > > > the score. I do appreciate some people like it, but my own | view is | > > > > spam has moved on beyond the point of it being useful. | > | > > On Sun, 2009-09-13 at 16:37 -0600, LuKreme wrote: | > > > Facts? we don't need no pesky facts. You are very misinformed. | > | > On 14.09.09 08:48, Clunk Werclick wrote: | > > Myself, I've seen some very poor Bayesian databases where users | have | > > been allowed to categorize mail as spam-v-ham. One company who | deal with | > > Pharmaceuticals for famine relief in Uganda and other poor | African | > > countries found bayes to mess with their core mail to a point that | made | > > it worthless in their context. | > | > I would say that is a result of badly trained BAYES, not fgrom its | bad | > design. | > | > If you insist on not using bayes, just because it can be mistrained, | better | > don't use any configurable software, because _everything_ | configurable will go wrong | > if miscongured. | | The *issue* with bayes is it *can* have user input. Would you trust | your | users influencing system wide policy? | | I've already stated I'll try it. So read the xxxxxx follow up before | shouting your thick foreign mouth off you stupid xxxx! | If the OP cannot refrain from that sort of foul language when presented with counter arguments then please ban. The list would be far happier IMHO. BR, -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content and is believed to be clean. SplatNIX IT Services :: Innovation through collaboration
