Tom Meunier said: > A Bayes > database doesn't reach maturity by having a certain number of SA-filtered spa > ms >15 and SA-filtered hams <-2; it reaches maturity by having a certain numb > er of confirmed hams and spams, period. Therefore, if one organization obtai > ns initial Bayes seeding strictly through auto-learning for three weeks and g > et 2000 hams and 2000 spams in it, and another does theirs in 15 minutes by m > anually teaching it 2000 hams from this week, and 2000 spams from this week ( > that SpamAssassin has never touched), the LATTER would be the much, much more > accurate Bayesian seeding procedure.
Yes, exactly correct. > This is discussed in-depth in Paul Graham's writing on the topic, specificall > y the part where he mentions that tokens like "per" and "FL" and "ff0000" are > actually very reliable indicators of spammishness. Mind you, this is not so correct. ;) Ignore that part of PG's writings; it indicates only that he does not get very much HTML email ;) We tested this, and against our corpora it did very badly. So it's one of those things that mean 1 thing for 1 person and another for others -- which, coincidentally, is where bayes does well ;) --j. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: eBay Great deals on office technology -- on eBay now! Click here: http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/711-11697-6916-5 _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
