Maybe I just fed it better files back then or spam was more obvious back in the days ;-)
Cheers, Sebastian > On 11.07.2014, at 20:15, "Angus McIntyre" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Eric Shubert wrote: >> P.S. Anyone else using DSPAM? > > I set up DSPAM and have it running, but I haven't had much luck with it. > > I have a vague memory of seeing someone claim that you could train DSPAM > using only 'spam' samples (no 'ham'), so I fed it my entire spam archive > for the month, with only a very small number of 'ham' examples. > Afterwards, DSPAM decided that all email was spam. (Granted, that probably > gives it a false-positive rate of about 3%, but still). > > I then blew away its databases and tried to train it more selectively, > letting it rate everything and forcing it to re-learn (as Spam) any > messages that it had wrongly classified as Innocent. Unfortunately, I > never seemed to be able to even "move the needle": feeding numerous > samples of a highly-recognizable type of spam only reduced DSPAM's > confidence that they were Innocent, but it never seemed to tip over into > considering them Spam. I think the best that I ever got was a verdict that > some particularly flagrant piece of spam was only Innocent with 60% > probability. > > I should work out a more intelligent training regime and see if I can't > get it to behave as advertised, but for me it certainly hasn't been the > 'out-of-the-box' spam-recognizing miracle that it has been for some > people. > > Angus > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
