> << I ran it on a small set of spam and good emails - and it worked > beautifully until I realised that my logic was different to Paul's. :^) > Then I fixed it and it didn't work so good :^( >> > > I hope the broken one, that worked better, is still available for > comparison. :)
The broken program calculated the "interesting" words to be the words with the *highest* 15 probabilities of being spam - instead of calculating the highest variance from 0.5. So with small sample sizes it looked like it was working really well, but I doubt that it would work in all cases. Probably worth testing against a good set of emails. Regards, Brett. -- To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the subject, without the quotes.
