At 23:40 24/08/2003 -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 03:36:50PM +1200, Simon Byrnand wrote:
> Ok. Did the statistics file give any suggestion of what kind of balance
> between spam and ham would get autolearnt with those thresholds ? Is the
Have you looked at the STATISTICS* fi
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 03:36:50PM +1200, Simon Byrnand wrote:
> Ok. Did the statistics file give any suggestion of what kind of balance
> between spam and ham would get autolearnt with those thresholds ? Is the
Have you looked at the STATISTICS* files?
> new Bayes algorithm any more resistant
At 23:22 24/08/2003 -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 02:59:42PM +1200, Simon Byrnand wrote:
> already using on 2.55 I'm curious to know if the new values were chosen
> empirically or whether some kind of stats were involved to check the
lowest
> scores of spam and the highest
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 02:59:42PM +1200, Simon Byrnand wrote:
> already using on 2.55 I'm curious to know if the new values were chosen
> empirically or whether some kind of stats were involved to check the lowest
> scores of spam and the highest scores of ham etc...
They were chosen by looking
