-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Daniel Quinlan writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Justin Mason) writes: > > > eh, why drop the FP/FN from the summary line? and it's missing a > > newline ;) > > Because those FP and FN numbers are the ones relative to the total > number of messages rather than the amount of spam or ham. They should be made relative to spam/ham, and reinstated. otherwise I'm -1 on that change. Judging effectiveness by TCR alone is *not* a good idea. TCR is sensitive to the relative sizes of the spam/ham corpus if I recall correctly, and also does not give a good idea of overall effectiveness as a single figure. for example, very high FP will get a high TCR if the FNs are low enough, whereas in real-world use, high FP is always to be avoided. - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFAye4bQTcbUG5Y7woRAop8AKCcXoczqQc1Z+XX9sn/C4QtNmVY1wCePd46 fGrcM1oZeyvQ28cFwlbXnWo= =8yYC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
