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, that's exactly what Tom was questioning and after thinking about it for two seconds it becomes obvious that he's right. One should teach Bayes every spam it doesn't get known otherwise. 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 ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: eBay Great deals on office technology -- on eBay now! Click here: http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/711-11697-6916-5 _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
