Sorry, clicked the wrong button. My last reply wasn't meant to go to the
list but only to Tony, my apologies.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
IE-Center: http://ie5.de & http://msie.winware.org
-
Tom Meunier said:
> A Bayes
> database doesn't reach maturity by having a certain number of SA-filtered spa
> ms >15 and SA-filtered hams <-2; it reaches maturity by having a certain numb
> er of confirmed hams and spams, period. Therefore, if one organization obtai
> ns initial Bayes seeding s
Tom Meunier wrote:
To my mind, it's not murdering, or anything remotely approaching it.
Bless you for bothering, Tom. Your line wrap is so utterly impossible
with Mozilla 1.4rc1 (would have been better in Evo 1.2.4, but I fscked
that up on my machine by compiling and installing gtk+2.2), that I
> -Original Message-
> From: Tony Earnshaw [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 7:58 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Removing headers etc.. to feed Bayes correctly
>
>...people on the list were
> saying about
> murdering t
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
it was your response below. I really didn't quite understand it, but was
wondering what Gerhard Schrder had to do with this or "statistics". And
so I figured there was a slight chance that this was intended to express
that you didn't like my reply. Whatever, thanks for clari
Tony Earnshaw wrote on Sun, 15 Jun 2003 18:48:20 +0200:
> Course I didn't take offense at *anything* you have said, say now or
> will say in the future. I don't know what this is about; quoting could
> help jog my memory. It's a huge list, and I can't find the bit you're
> talking about here. Anyw
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Tony, I don't know what you mean. But if you took any offense from my
reply it was definitely not meant this way, sorry.
Kai,
Course I didn't take offense at *anything* you have said, say now or
will say in the future. I don't know what this is about; quoting could
help jog m
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Tony, I don't know what you mean. But if you took any offense from my
reply it was definitely not meant this way, sorry.
Kai,
Course I didn't take offense at *anything* you have said, say now or
will say in the future. I don't know what this is about; quoting could
help jog
Tony, I don't know what you mean. But if you took any offense from my
reply it was definitely not meant this way, sorry.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
IE-Center: http://ie5.de & http://msie.winware.org
--
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
That's exactly what I was saying (perhaps I'd misunderstood Tom.) I was
trying to say that teaching it spam under the level that one has defined
as being spam - even if it is spam - amounts to defeating one's own
purpose.
No, that's exactly what Tom was questioning and after
Tony Earnshaw wrote on Sat, 14 Jun 2003 10:35:50 +0200:
> That's exactly what I was saying (perhaps I'd misunderstood Tom.) I was
> trying to say that teaching it spam under the level that one has defined
> as being spam - even if it is spam - amounts to defeating one's own
> purpose.
>
No, th
Robert Menschel wrote:
TE> To get a reasonable base, it's been my understanding that you teach
TE> Bayes what is spam and what isn't. ...
Agreed.
TE> You don't start contradicting what you've taught it by teaching it
TE> low scoring spam until after you've reached your minimum bias of 200.
How is
Justin Mason wrote:
You'll confuse the whole Bayes database if you do anything different.
Why in goodness name put a minimum score of 5 in the first place, if
you're going to contradict yourself?
Actually, Tom's dead right.
If it's spam, feed it to the bayes learner as spam; if it's ham, do
t
Tony Earnshaw said:
> Tom Meunier wrote:
> > I'm kind of confused here. The way I see it (which could very well be a mi
> > sunderstanding, mind you) is that the reason it autolearns spam over 15 point
> > s by default is to make darned sure that it doesn't learn a false positive.
> > Then one
Tom Meunier wrote:
I'm kind of confused here. The way I see it (which could very well be a
misunderstanding, mind you) is that the reason it autolearns spam over 15 points by
default is to make darned sure that it doesn't learn a false positive. Then one would
augment its learning by feeding
her test and trip it over the threshold.
Perhaps I misunderstand. If so, I'd appreciate alternate viewpoints and discussion.
-tom
-Original Message-
From: Tony Earnshaw [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 3:10 PM
To: Simon Crowther
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re:
Simon Crowther wrote:
I wish to start feeding some of these low scoring spams using SA
Learn.
Don't. Have patience; trust me.
Tony
--
Tony Earnshaw
There's none so daft as them as will not learn
http://j-walk.com/blog/docs/conference.htm
http://www.billy.demon.nl
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At Tue Jun 10 09:25:45 2003, Simon Crowther wrote:
> Received: from mailgate.msxi-euro.com
> ([136.140.231.40])
> by msxi-euro.com; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 01:36:56 +0100
> Received: by mailgate.msxi-euro.com (Postfix, from userid 1002)
> id 5EE9F9F25; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 01:36:26 + (G
18 matches
Mail list logo
