On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 01:48:46PM -0500, James Golovich wrote:
| On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, dman wrote:
| > On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 09:12:23AM -0600, Shane Williams wrote:
| > | I was looking at the porn expressions and scoring, and thought of an
| > | idea to shoot by everybody.
| > |
| > | If I'm rea
Hmm, I just ran a test run with the so-far-accumulated new nonspam
corpus and the spam corpus, and PORN_3 comes out with a negative score.
So clearly the rule needs work.
C
On Thu, 2002-02-07 at 10:48, James Golovich wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, dman wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at
I was actually thinking of removing the 3-in-a-line restriction, but
splitting the rule in to at least 2 pieces: naughty words, and definite
signs of porn spam. "fuck" falls in the former category, "cum" in the
latter. I'll basically check each words' frequency in the corpus and
separate the wor
On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, dman wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 09:12:23AM -0600, Shane Williams wrote:
> | I was looking at the porn expressions and scoring, and thought of an
> | idea to shoot by everybody.
> |
> | If I'm reading the PORN_3 rule correctly,
>
> I had set all the PORN_* rules to 10
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 09:12:23AM -0600, Shane Williams wrote:
| I was looking at the porn expressions and scoring, and thought of an
| idea to shoot by everybody.
|
| If I'm reading the PORN_3 rule correctly,
I had set all the PORN_* rules to 10.0 in my config. I kept getting a
significant nu
I was looking at the porn expressions and scoring, and thought of an
idea to shoot by everybody.
If I'm reading the PORN_3 rule correctly, you must have three of the
listed strings within 15 characters of each other, and this scores .7
if caught.
Two things seem strange about this. First, how o
