---- "Clunk Werclick" <mailbacku...@googlemail.com> wrote: | On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 12:24 +0100, --[ UxBoD ]-- wrote: | > ----- "Clunk Werclick" <mailbacku...@googlemail.com> wrote: | > | > | 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 xxxxxx follow up | before | > | shouting your thick foreign mouth off you stupid xxxx! | > | | > If the OP cannot refrain from that sort of foul language when | presented with counter arguments then please ban. The list would be | far happier IMHO. | Then stop off list mailing me you thick cunt and tell someone that | fucking cares. | > | > BR, | > Pity! all my posts have been on list - only direct one was to respond to your private message. Ho hum. Move along.
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content and is believed to be clean. SplatNIX IT Services :: Innovation through collaboration
