> > On 12-Sep-2009, at 10:27, Clunk Werclick wrote: > > > I disagree. It can do as much harm as good. My own view and > > > observation from the past have rendered it pointless in my context. It > > > adds latency, is easily poisoned and rarely makes much difference to > > > the score. I do appreciate some people like it, but my own view is > > > spam has moved on beyond the point of it being useful.
> On Sun, 2009-09-13 at 16:37 -0600, LuKreme wrote: > > Facts? we don't need no pesky facts. You are very misinformed. On 14.09.09 08:48, Clunk Werclick wrote: > Myself, I've seen some very poor Bayesian databases where users have > been allowed to categorize mail as spam-v-ham. One company who deal with > Pharmaceuticals for famine relief in Uganda and other poor African > countries found bayes to mess with their core mail to a point that made > it worthless in their context. I would say that is a result of badly trained BAYES, not fgrom its bad design. If you insist on not using bayes, just because it can be mistrained, better don't use any configurable software, because _everything_ configurable will go wrong if miscongured. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. 42.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.
