John Hardin writes: > On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, Rob McEwen wrote: > > > Or, these could be "False-False Positives"... which is a very good thing > > because that would mean that those were really spams that would have > > scored "below threshold" without use of the new list. (or, some mix of > > these two) > > So, for the purposes of an analysis like this, perhaps the results should > be broken into *three* categories: obviously spam, obviously ham, and > borderline.
nah. Rob's "False-False Positives" are more commonly called "spam". his user just needed a better corpus ;) --j.
