Am 20.01.2016 um 20:52 schrieb Marc Perkel:
On 01/20/16 11:50, Reindl Harald wrote:Am 20.01.2016 um 20:46 schrieb Marc Perkel:Let me give you an example. Here's 2 subject lines. Easy to guess which one is spam. "Meet horny Russian Brides online!" "I read an article about Russian brides in a magazine." Bayes or spam assassin would look at "Russian Brides" and 499 out of 500 times it's spam. Therefore the nonspam version scores spam points. In my system "Russian brides" is neutral because it is used in both spam and ham. But on the spam side, phrases used in other spam *not matched* in hamthat is *exactly* how bayes works and subject alone is *not* they key tokenizing the *whole* message with enough spam *and* ham samples is the key - so there are two options: * you re-invited bayes with a different name * you modified bayes with some tricks and hope spammers would not adopt them anyways, i doubt there is a sane reason for a patent because the principles are just prior art -> bayesAgain - Bayes compares what matches. My filter compares what doesn't match
and how is "what doesn't match" classified? as spam? so every mail it did not seen before is spammy? as ham? completly random junk is hammy?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
