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.
Do you remember the indignant voice of Gerhard Schröder (clip was in English) when being told by D. Rumsfeld that he was obliged to take part in the "war" against Irak?
Well, that's how I feel about this particular thing. Some balmy institute once forced "statistics" down my throat.
Best,
Tony
-- Tony Earnshaw
- Deyr fé, deyr frendr deyr sjálfr 'it sama - ek veit ein aldrigi deyr - dómr um dauđan hvern.
From Hávamál - what gods have said
http://j-walk.com/blog/docs/conference.htm http://www.billy.demon.nl Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------- 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
