Michael Monnerie wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 10. Mai 2006 17:08 Bowie Bailey wrote:
> > Yes, this user is set with all the default options for Bayes
> > learning and a spam threshold of 5.0. The entire Bayes database
> > was created via autolearn for this user.
>
> Is that possible at all? I though tha
On Mittwoch, 10. Mai 2006 17:08 Bowie Bailey wrote:
> Yes, this user is set with all the default options for Bayes learning
> and a spam threshold of 5.0. The entire Bayes database was created
> via autolearn for this user.
Is that possible at all? I though that bayes to work you need 200 ham +
Michael Monnerie wrote:
> On Dienstag, 9. Mai 2006 23:32 Bowie Bailey wrote:
> > And as an additional data point, I found this for one of our
> > internal users who has never done any manual training:
> > RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM
> > -
Michael Monnerie wrote:
> On Dienstag, 9. Mai 2006 23:14 Bowie Bailey wrote:
> > When I look at the overall stats, bayes does pretty good:
> > RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM
> >
> >6BAYES_9926754
On Dienstag, 9. Mai 2006 23:32 Bowie Bailey wrote:
> And as an additional data point, I found this for one of our internal
> users who has never done any manual training:
> RANK RULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM
>
>
On Dienstag, 9. Mai 2006 23:14 Bowie Bailey wrote:
> When I look at the overall stats, bayes does pretty good:
> RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM
>
>6BAYES_9926754 4.19 44.49 67.003.06
3%
Bowie Bailey wrote:
> I was checking the relative usefulness of the per-user Bayes databases
> for my users and came up with the following confusing information.
>
> When I look at the overall stats, bayes does pretty good:
> RANKRULE NAME COUNT %OFRULES %OFMAIL %OFSPAM %OFHAM
> ---
