On Saturday 03 July 2004 13:58, Jack L. Stone wrote: > At 11:17 AM 7.3.2004 -0800, John Andersen wrote: > >On Saturday 03 July 2004 11:13, Scot L. Harris wrote: > >> I have seen a couple of messages recently indicating that the bayes > >> database becomes less effective over time. Is this really true? > >> > >> I thought the idea was that by feeding spam and ham sets to it on a > >> regular basis that is should continue to become more effective. > >> > >> So how often should the entire database be purged? > >> > >> Are there issues with the ratio of ham spam in the database being to far > >> out of equilibrium? > > > >IMHO, it is not less effective AS LONG AS you feed missed spam > >and False Positives back to SA-Learn process. > > The point about less effective is the question of "weight". As you know, > the spammer changes the form of attack constantly in an effort to get > around our defenses. Thus, if your "basket" is full of apples and now there > are more "oranges" being used than apples, the defeneses are weaker. > > Best regards, > Jack L. Stone, > Administrator
Perhaps so, Jack, but feeding the a few missed "orange" spam back to sa-learn and you will have all the fruit in the trashbin. Bayes is not, and should not be considdered as, static. Its a living thing... -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
pgpRJK6qq94v3.pgp
Description: signature
