> That is high relative to the conventional wisdom, but I'm questioning > the correctness of that wisdom.
Check out this thread, which should give you a reasonable idea: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/spambayes-dev/2003-November/001578.html > Perhaps its time to re-evaluate that statement? Google also shows anecdotal reports of poor results after an imbalance as low as 2:1, so I don't think it would be responsible to re-evaluate that statement until clear evidence was presented to the contrary. Cheers, Mark _______________________________________________ SpamBayes@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/spambayes Check the FAQ before asking: http://spambayes.sf.net/faq.html
