> > Tony Godshall wrote: > > >Hi, Justin, all. > > > >I'm doing nearly the opposite: > > > >My upstream runs spamassasin. I run a a non-naive bayesian > >(crm114) myself. The default config for crm114 is to strip spamassassin's > >headers, but I've found that the SA headers give crm114 very very good hints, > >and have acheived (to me, subjectively) amazing accuracy, not just for > >spam vs nonspam but for spam vs 20 nonspam mailboxes, including troublesome > >spammish lists like [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >It seems to me that the insertion of the results of the bevy of SA > >tests improve the > >results of bayesian learning significantly.
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 12:36:52 -0800, Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree. I think that ultimately a second bayesian filter that was > trained on only rule names could replace the SA scoring and become self > scoring rules. But why only on rule names? Why not let the learning filter have the rest of the data too?
