From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 12 August 2003 12:33
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] Impotence!!
>
>
> Hi Everyone
>
> I receive a daily email from a financial mailing list, it is
> never usua
Hi Everyone
I receive a daily email from a financial mailing list, it is never usually identified
as spam, however, they today made the mistake of capitalising the subject line of the
email, but the really killer was the (apparent) reference to 'impotence'; this sent it
over the edge with an ex
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> How did I not see that!
>
> Would it be wise to sa-learn that message as ham?
yep, exactly the correct response ;)
--j.
---
This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including
Data Reports,
On 08/12/03 01:12 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] sat at the `puter and typed:
> How did I not see that!
>
> Would it be wise to sa-learn that message as ham?
Nope. I'd just whitelist the sender - assuming it's a closed list, of
course.
Lou
>
>
> Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote ..
> > Th
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Louis LeBlanc wrote:
> On 08/12/03 01:12 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] sat at the `puter and typed:
> >
> > Would it be wise to sa-learn that message as ham?
>
> Nope.
Eh? Of course it would be wise to learn the message as ham. The more
data the classifier has, the more accurate
On 08/12/03 01:09 PM, Justin Mason sat at the `puter and typed:
>
> Bart Schaefer writes:
> >The point is that -- aside from the rule "do not teach spam as ham, nor
> >teach ham as spam" -- YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW what data will increase or
> >decrease the classifier's accuracy. As a human, you're
Bart Schaefer writes:
>The point is that -- aside from the rule "do not teach spam as ham, nor
>teach ham as spam" -- YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW what data will increase or
>decrease the classifier's accuracy. As a human, you're good at making the
>gestalt (and subjective) judgement "this is spam" (or
How did I not see that!
Would it be wise to sa-learn that message as ham?
Thanks
Gareth
Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote ..
> The rule hits "erectile dysfunction":
>
> SEX TIP FOR INVESTORS
> Pfizer shareholders all know there's a growing market for the=20
> treatment of erecti
On 08/12/03 12:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] sat at the `puter and typed:
> Hi Everyone
Hey
Snipping for brevity . . .
This next item is what did it. 'Erectile dysfunction' is just a fancy
way of saying 'impotence' after all.
>[6]Sex Tip For Investors
>Pfizer shareholders all know there's
Mike Burger writes:
> Agreed...it's not likely that that particular message is going to pass
> through the list, again, in the same form, so the bayes database wouldn't
> really mean squat at that point, insofar as that message goes.
Yes -- but when you learn a message as ham, it learns *all as
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Louis LeBlanc wrote:
> > Ideally you'd train [SA's Bayesian] on every message you receive.
>
> That particular message will almost certainly never pass through his
> system again, so why use the content to train bayes?
If that argument was valid, you'd never train Bayes on h
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Louis LeBlanc wrote:
> On 08/12/03 01:12 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] sat at the `puter and typed:
> > How did I not see that!
> >
> > Would it be wise to sa-learn that message as ham?
>
> Nope. I'd just whitelist the sender - assuming it's a closed list, of
> course.
Agreed
On 08/12/03 09:07 AM, Bart Schaefer sat at the `puter and typed:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Louis LeBlanc wrote:
>
> > On 08/12/03 01:12 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] sat at the `puter and typed:
> > >
> > > Would it be wise to sa-learn that message as ham?
> >
> > Nope.
>
> Eh? Of course it would be wis
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 12:32:58PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi Everyone
>
> I receive a daily email from a financial mailing list, it is never usually
> identified as spam, however, they today made the mistake of capitalising the subject
> line of the email, but the really killer was th
14 matches
Mail list logo
