-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Matt Kettler writes:
> At 10:50 AM 1/10/2006, Chris Santerre wrote:
>
> >I have long said that IMHO, I do not think bayes is worth it. Left
> >unattended, it isn't as good. A simple rule can take out a lot of spam.
> >Some may say rule writing is more complicated then training bayes. Maybe.
> >Not so much the rule writing, but the figuring out what to look for and
> >testing for FPs.
>
> Interesting.. For me, BAYES_99 is right between SURBL and URIBL in terms of
> hits. (And has 98.91% of URIBL's total hits) I find it completely
> indispensable.
The thing is, Bayes is a tool for personalization -- and as such, its
effectiveness varies widely depending on what *you* do with it.
For what it's worth, I've *never* trained my current Bayes DB, and have
been running with it for about 6 months I think. I get BAYES_00 on most
ham, and BAYES_99 on most spam.
But the 4 letters that matter with Bayes are:
YMMV
;)
- --j.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS
iD8DBQFDxAWfMJF5cimLx9ARAvvfAJwIiQQpAzBPYNEKnQiWLw4NMmxZewCfTxEg
qquh5FGGGQFwFU6TdOlIDi0=
=CcrR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
