----- "Matus UHLAR - fantomas" <uh...@fantomas.sk> 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. | | > On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 11:46 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: | > > I would say that is a result of badly trained BAYES, not fgrom its | bad | > > design. | | On 14.09.09 12:06, Clunk Werclick wrote: | > The *issue* with bayes is it *can* have user input. Would you trust | your | > users influencing system wide policy? | | That only happens if you allow your users to train system-wide BAYES. | However this is usually also called "misconfiguration" - in common | situations either users have their own bayes databases, or they can't | train | the site-wide one. | | > > 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. | | > I've already stated I'll try it. So read the fucking follow up | before | > shouting your thick foreign mouth off you stupid cunt! | | I have read your previous posts, I only wanted to react on some of | your | "arguments". I would post the private email I received from Clunk but I will not lower myself or expose the list to such vulgarity.
BR, -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content and is believed to be clean. SplatNIX IT Services :: Innovation through collaboration
