On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 11:46 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > > 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.
The *issue* with bayes is it *can* have user input. Would you trust your users influencing system wide policy? I've already stated I'll try it. So read the fucking follow up before shouting your thick foreign mouth off you stupid cunt! -- ----------------------------------------------------------- C Werclick .Lot Technical incompetent Loyal Order Of The Teapot. This e-mail and its attachments is intended only to be used as an e-mail and an attachment. Any use of it for other purposes other than as an e-mail and an attachment will not be covered by any warranty that may or may not form part of this e-mail and attachment.
