Rw wrote on Sat, 6 Mar 2010 01:04:20 +0000: > There's nothing odd about that, it's common that hard to learn spam is > identified correctly on retesting.
I'm not sure what you want to say. Do you want to say that a message tested right after learning may get 99, but next day it will have 50 again? That is unlikely, unless you slash your Bayes overnight. I'm still getting 99 on it. I also understood his remark as meaning that he tested right after learning. Kai -- Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
