On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:45:42AM -0400, Gordon Cormack wrote: > What I have observed is < 0.2% false > positives and < 1.0% false negatives.
I miscomputed, using only the spam count in the denominator. The true numbers [false / (ham+spam)] are: false positives: < 0.05% (counted) false negative: < 0.3% (estimated) Note: the bayesian formula was improved substantially halfway through the development of version 2.60. This improved its accuracy a lot, and also its sensitivity to inaccurate learning. -- Gordon V. Cormack CS Dept, University of Waterloo, Canada N2L 3G1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://cormack.uwaterloo.ca/cormack ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU Attention Web Developers & Consultants: Become An INetU Hosting Partner. Refer Dedicated Servers. We Manage Them. You Get 10% Monthly Commission! INetU Dedicated Managed Hosting http://www.inetu.net/partner/index.php _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
