On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 01:05 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> The AWL manipulating options are rather limited, offering addition of a
> high scoring positive or negative entry, or plain removal of an address.
> In particular unlike Bayes, AWL doesn't work on a per-message basis.
> Forgetting a si
On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 09:11 -0600, Jesse Norell wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 13:04 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > On 03.09.14 15:13, Jesse Norell wrote:
> > > Both today and in the past I've looked at some FP's that scored very
> > > high on AWL. At least today I dug up the old mess
On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 13:04 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 03.09.14 15:13, Jesse Norell wrote:
> > Both today and in the past I've looked at some FP's that scored very
> >high on AWL. At least today I dug up the old messages that caused AWL
> >to get out of line, and trained them as ha
On 03.09.14 15:13, Jesse Norell wrote:
Both today and in the past I've looked at some FP's that scored very
high on AWL. At least today I dug up the old messages that caused AWL
to get out of line, and trained them as ham. AWL's scores still show
the high scores on those (in this case I manual
