On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 16:44:57 +0200, Norman Uittenbogaart
wrote:
> Hello Stevan,
>
> Results are way better at the moment, thank you!
>
> nor...@*.nl:
> TP True Positives: 774
> TN True Negatives: 2109
> FP False Po
Hello Stevan,
Results are way better at the moment, thank you!
nor...@*.nl:
TP True Positives: 774
TN True Negatives: 2109
FP False Positives:3
FN False Negatives:
I am currently out of office working on a project. As soon as I get home
I will quickly look over your dspam.conf and send you a bunch of
suggestions. Okay?
--
Kind Regards from Switzerland,
Stevan Bajić
On
Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:15:50 +0200, Norman Uittenbogaart wrote:
Ok thats
not a big p
Ok thats not a big problem as this is not really working out.
Which one should I use ?
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Stevan Bajić wrote:
> Hallo Norman,
>
>
>
> getting higher accuracy would require to start from the beginning since the
> tokenizer you use is not that intelligent and usi
Hallo Norman,
getting higher accuracy would require to start from the
beginning since the tokenizer you use is not that intelligent and using
anything other more intelligent would require you to start from the
beginning with the learning.
--
Kind Regards from Switzerland,
Stevan
Bajić
On F
Hi Stevan,
Any suggestions to getting the accuracy up would be great !
My user is shared,managed in the groups file for the domains used now.
nor...@t*.nl:
TP True Positives: 856
TN True Negatives: 6650
FP False Po
Hallo Norman,
you asked "what is wrong". Right? Nothing is wrong with
your DSPAM installation. There are things you could do better but nothing
is really, really wrong.
Could you post the output of "dspam_stats -H ".
--
Kind Regards from Switzerland,
Stevan Bajić
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010
14:5
Hello,
the statistic alone is not enough information for telling why
your accuracy is down. You need to post your dspam.conf.
--
Kind Regards
from Switzerland,
Stevan Bajić
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:29:06 +0200, Norman
Uittenbogaart wrote:
I have been running and training dspam for while
