I've been running a Bayesian filter at my company about since Paul Graham
published his paper. Lack of ham will result in some false positives where
messages that are not spam are marked incorrectly as spam. There is a
diminishing point of return to adding ham, but I haven't found it yet. I do
k
On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 03:17:55PM +0200, Pierre Beck wrote:
> I'm afraid my Bayes filter will learn too much spam. I'm getting 90%
> Spam, so I can't give an equal amount of ham, even if I sa-learn every
I wouldn't worry. I've mostly neglected feeding the Bayes DB with much ham,
but had no pro
