> How did SpamBayes perform in the TREC 2005 testing? Do you have any > numbers?
For a start, you can see the information here: http:// plg.uwaterloo.ca/~gvcormac/trecspamtrack05/ At some point during the registration process TREC latched on to "Massey University" (where I was working at the time, but completely uninvolved with SpamBayes) as my 'organisation name', so you may see that in some of the results. Just substitute "SpamBayes" for "Massey University" wherever you see it. I'll make my notebook paper available when I have a chance, and (once it's done) my proceedings paper. In brief, SpamBayes did better than I expected (towards the bottom of the top ten) considering that it is designed to classify as ham/ unsure/spam, not ham/spam, and considering that I didn't make any special effort to change options, etc (in fact, it seems that the best variant of SpamBayes was the out-of-the-box one), nor did I put any effort into determining what the single cutoff should be. What surprised me the most was that the train-on-everything variant seems to have performed the best. I'm still looking into this; I hope to have more details by the time the proceedings paper is finished. =Tony.Meyer -- Please always include the list (spambayes at python.org) in your replies (reply-all), and please don't send me personal mail about SpamBayes. http://www.massey.ac.nz/~tameyer/writing/reply_all.html explains this. _______________________________________________ SpamBayes@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/spambayes Check the FAQ before asking: http://spambayes.sf.net/faq.html
