>>> On 4/19/2013 at 12:06 AM, John Hardin <jhar...@impsec.org> wrote: > On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote: > >>>>> On 4/18/2013 at 7:21 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk> wrote: >>> On 18.04.13 06:45, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote: >>>> I was concerned about this: >>>> >>>> [score: 0.4968] >>> >>> This meant that BAYES has computer 49.56% probability that the mail is spam >>> and the rest (50.44%) that it is HAM. >> >> ok >> >>> DO NOT play with BAYES_50 score. >> >> ? What can it hurt? > > BAYES_50 is the bayes classifier's way of saying "insufficient data" or "I > don't know". > > Do you really want to assign 3 points for "I don't know"? > > -- > John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/ > jhar...@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org > key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79 > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ten-millimeter explosive-tip caseless, standard light armor > piercing rounds. Why? > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tomorrow: the 238th anniversary of The Shot Heard 'Round The World
In this case, from the samples I've seen. Absolutely, yes. For me, this last few days, I have seen lots of missed spam that has virtually nothing else to trigger on. Been so irritated by this I considered giving it a 5.0. But, even for me, that's over the top. joe a
