well, i get false positives with an empty body ...
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 38912 invoked by uid 19047); 17 Oct 2003 07:23:43 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mpls-qmqp-02.inet.qwest.net) ([63.231.195.113])
(envelope-sender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
by 192.220.74.103 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 17 Oct 2003 07:23:43 -0000
Received: (qmail 73098 invoked by uid 0); 17 Oct 2003 06:40:41 -0000
Received: from mpls-pop-02.inet.qwest.net (63.231.195.2)
by mpls-qmqp-02.inet.qwest.net with QMQP; 17 Oct 2003 06:40:41 -0000
Received: from ddslppp71.tcsn.uswest.net (HELO neeeeeee) (216.161.150.71)
by mpls-pop-02.inet.qwest.net with SMTP; 17 Oct 2003 07:23:42 -0000
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:28:01 -0700
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Ben Wing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ben Wing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: test test
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on 666.com
X-Spam-Report:
* 2.1 BAYES_90 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 90 to 99%
* [score: 0.9573]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_90 autolearn=ham
version=2.60
X-Spam-Level: **
Status:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Justin Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Martin Radford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Ben Wing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 3:41 PM
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] strange behavior of Bayesian analyzer in SA 2.6
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Martin Radford writes:
> >At Fri Oct 17 21:17:54 2003, Ben Wing wrote:
> >>
> >> hi. i just upgraded from 2.53 to 2.6 and i'm seeing something
> >> rather odd about the Bayesian results: nearly every one is almost
> >> exactly 0%, 50%, or 100%! it's almost as if it's applying an
> >> extreme rounding function to the actual result. now, these are
> >> turning out so far to be accurate, but i'm still highly distrustful
> >> of such "perfect" results. this clustering happened the instant i
> >> upgraded spam assassin -- in fact, one of the first messages i sent
> >> after this
> >
> >I found this when I first upgraded to one of the pre-releases of 2.60.
> >The developers said that this was due to changing the method of
> >calculating the Bayes score. The newer code is much more likely to
> >cluster around 0, 0.5, and 1. I have seen a few messages outside
> >those cluster areas, but not too many. I've not seen any FPs, though.
>
> If you're seeing FPs, it's strongly indicative of mistakes in the
> training data -- spam trained as ham or vice-versa, I'm afraid ;)
>
> - --j.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Exmh CVS
>
> iD8DBQE/kxMjQTcbUG5Y7woRAgnyAJ9GaPCdey9oNgAT/y2ZiJkahjPuIgCgoxAC
> vPt8S4fWAKrhfkvq++O4BmI=
> =JWtb
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email sponsored by: Enterprise Linux Forum Conference & Expo
> The Event For Linux Datacenter Solutions & Strategies in The Enterprise
> Linux in the Boardroom; in the Front Office; & in the Server Room
> http://www.enterpriselinuxforum.com
> _______________________________________________
> Spamassassin-talk mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by OSDN developer relations
Here's your chance to show off your extensive product knowledge
We want to know what you know. Tell us and you have a chance to win $100
http://www.zoomerang.com/survey.zgi?HRPT1X3RYQNC5V4MLNSV3E54
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
