Hi, Matus - I wanted to ask you about your last point about the bayes9x fps and the 0x fns, mostly because it seems like that contradicts the sentence that follows (that you don't consider it to be 100%). If there's no FNs or FPs, it's about as good as it gets, no?
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas <[email protected]>wrote: > On 28.05.13 16:43, Andrew Talbot wrote: > >> That said, I'm wondering if it's redundant to run DCC and Bayes at the >> same >> time? From what I understand, DCC is a subscription-based service, so it >> would be nice to be able to cut that cost out! >> > > No, it is not. It only requires you using other than public DCC servers > when > your daily rate is over 200k. The server must share the checksums with the > DCC network (otherwise you couldn't catch those spams even). If you have > that many messages daily, it would not be even a bad idea have DCC locally. > > > score, but we'd trust Bayes to subtract points from messages it is >> confident are ham. >> > > I rarely have BAYES_9x FPs and BAYES_0x FNs. While BAYES is great, I don't > consider it to be 100% > -- > Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [email protected] ; 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. > Saving Private Ryan... > Private Ryan exists. Overwrite? (Y/N) >
