On 08/12/03 01:09 PM, Justin Mason sat at the `puter and typed: > > Bart Schaefer writes: > >The point is that -- aside from the rule "do not teach spam as ham, nor > >teach ham as spam" -- YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW what data will increase or > >decrease the classifier's accuracy. As a human, you're good at making the > >gestalt (and subjective) judgement "this is spam" (or ham). You're not > >good at instantly recognizing every fragment of the message that the > >classifier considers to be a token and then determining whether each such > >token occurs more frequently (or uniquely) in spam or ham. > > Ah, that's the good point right there about Bayes. > > The reason Bayesish probabilistic classification systems work well, is > *because* you don't have to second-guess them -- just feed them spam and > ham, and they will "do the right thing", even if you think you might be > confusing them.
Both very good points. After considering your arguments subjectively, I guess I have to defer to your conclusions . . . Lou -- Louis LeBlanc [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fully Funded Hobbyist, KeySlapper Extrordinaire :) http://www.keyslapper.org ԿԬ I've already got a female to worry about. Her name is the Enterprise. -- Kirk, "The Corbomite Maneuver", stardate 1514.0 ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
