On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Matt Kettler wrote: > One thing that needs to be kept in mind is that SA is already quite > effective against mis-spelling tactics... mis-spellings are VERY easy > targets for any bayes system, you just have to be up-to-speed on your > training.
Yeah, that sorta makes sense... But fuzzy matching would eliminate the need for keeping up on the Bayesian training, which apparently would make a difference at some ISPs. I've been trying to persuade my ISP to start using the Bayes stuff at the site level, but they've been resistant to doing the extra work; or possibly they're just totally clueless about the existance of the Bayesian stuff -- when I emailed asking whether it was possible for individual users to get access to sa-train, they suggested I add "score TEST_NAME" lines to my user_prefs file. SA runs on the mailserver, which doesn't have shell access; to get mail onto the shell server, users run fetchmail. But SA is not provided on the shell server, so I don't think I'd be able to do Bayesian stuff for just my account. Even if I could, having individual users on the shell server all running their own Bayesian-tuned SAs might be a processor issue... I suggested that the admins send a note to all users asking for contributions of spam and ham, or providing standardized folder names where people could keep stuff for collation and use in training SA sitewide, but they didn't seem to think it was worth it. Maybe I just need a better ISP. (Though finding one that'll provide a *NIX shell environment _at all_ is pretty tough these days. *sigh*) Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Auros ------------------------------------------------------------------------ R Michael Harman / Auros Symtheos [EMAIL PROTECTED] ............ http://www.auros.org/ Linguist and Eclectic Engineer, Lexicus, Motorola [EMAIL PROTECTED] ......... http://www.lexicus.mot.com/ Senior Reviews Editor, Strange Horizons Speculative Fiction Weekly [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... http://www.strangehorizons.com/
