Re[2]: BayesIt doesn't work as it should (was: S*P*A*M)

Hello Alexander, Tuesday, October 4, 2005, 4:08:15 PM, you wrote: ASK Hello Wolffe everyone else, ASK on 04-Okt-2005 at 22:45 you (Wolffe) wrote: Is there anyway one can reverse the overtraining? ASK Just an idea. ASK You could keep the most recent spam mails, 30 days or so, reset the

Re[3]: BayesIt doesn't work as it should (was: S*P*A*M)

Hello Alexey, Monday, October 3, 2005, 8:34:56 PM, you wrote: No. Believe me, the problem exists. since both filters - my BayesIt and the Bayes Filter use so-called naive bayesian method, they are under the problem of overtraining. AFAIK the K9 creators use some solution to fight against it,

Re[3]: BayesIt doesn't work as it should (was: S*P*A*M)

Hello Alexey, No. Believe me, the problem exists. since both filters - my BayesIt and the Bayes Filter use so-called naive bayesian method, they are under the problem of overtraining. AFAIK the K9 creators use some solution to fight against it, and it is only the matter of time when such

Re: BayesIt doesn't work as it should (was: S*P*A*M)

Greetings BatPeople, Tuesday, October 4, 2005, 9:39:15 AM, Vili wrote: V Hello Alexey, No. Believe me, the problem exists. since both filters - my BayesIt and the Bayes Filter use so-called naive bayesian method, they are under the problem of overtraining. AFAIK the K9 creators use some

Re: BayesIt doesn't work as it should (was: S*P*A*M)

Hello Wolffe everyone else, on 04-Okt-2005 at 22:45 you (Wolffe) wrote: Is there anyway one can reverse the overtraining? Just an idea. You could keep the most recent spam mails, 30 days or so, reset the bayesit database and then train it anew with the spam mails you kept for spam and your

BayesIt doesn't work as it should (was: S*P*A*M)

Hi Stuart, on Mon, 3 Oct 2005 08:39:26 -0500GMT, you wrote: SC I guess this is really to the creators of BayesIt and Bayes Filter, SC but what the heck is going on here. I have two computers, one running SC BayesIT and the other Bayes Filter and I have had to quit using them SC both as they

Re[2]: BayesIt doesn't work as it should (was: S*P*A*M)

Hello MikeD, A reminder of what MikeD (2) typed on: Monday, October 03, 2005 at 14:01:48 GMT -0500 M2 Hi Stuart, M2 on Mon, 3 Oct 2005 08:39:26 -0500GMT, you wrote: I guess this is really to the creators of BayesIt and Bayes Filter, but what the heck is going on here. I have two

Re[3]: BayesIt doesn't work as it should (was: S*P*A*M)

Hello Stuart, Monday, October 3, 2005, 2:34:52 PM, you wrote: SC I get too many false positives as it is I could not lower the SC threshold. No, if you are getting false positives you need to make the threshold number larger not smaller. SC I followed a lead someone else left to check to see

Re[4]: BayesIt doesn't work as it should (was: S*P*A*M)

Hello MikeD, Monday, October 3, 2005, 4:13:06 PM, you wrote: M2 No, if you are getting false positives you need to make the threshold M2 number larger not smaller. I have not changed the original setting, so if I raise it it would be above the 90 mark. -- Best regards, Stuart

Re[2]: BayesIt doesn't work as it should (was: S*P*A*M)

Hello, MikeD. You wrote 04.10.2005 @ 2:01 in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] using mailer: The Bat! (v3.61.09 Echo (Beta)) Home I guess this is really to the creators of BayesIt and Bayes Filter, but what the heck is going on here. I have two computers, one running BayesIT and the other Bayes Filter