Hello Bob, Wednesday, February 11, 2004, 5:53:03 PM, you wrote:
BG> Robert Menschel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 1) Yes, sa-learn DOES deal with these emails, and does so >> exceedingly well here. I call them "bayes fodder", since those random >> words are teaching bayes that emails with those random words are spam. BG> Just to avoid confusion, you're saying that AFTER TRAINING, bayes works quite BG> well for those messages, right? The key is feeding any messages that DO slip BG> through into sa-learn as spam UNTIL you get those results, no? Correct, with one clarification: The key is feeding ANY/ALL messages to sa-learn, whether or not they have slipped through. The great majority of spam is caught regardless; if we sa-learn only those that slip through, then IMO there isn't enough information for Bayes to make this determination. If ALL confirmed spam is fed to sa-learn, then Bayes will have enough information. BG> The "random words" question seems to come up frequently, and TRAINED bayes BG> seems to be a good answer. Agreed. Bob Menschel
