On Sun, 2009-09-13 at 01:34 +0100, RW wrote: > On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:27:00 +0100 > Clunk Werclick <mailbacku...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, 2009-09-12 at 08:54 -0700, John Hardin wrote: > > > On Sat, 12 Sep 2009, Clunk Werclick wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, 2009-09-12 at 16:15 +0300, Jari Fredriksson wrote: > > > >> > > > >> What's wrong with the bayes? > > > > > > > > Bayes is going out of fashion. > > > > > > Since when? And according to whom? Bayes is one of the stronger > > > tools available. > > I disagree. It can do as much harm as good. My own view and > > observation from the past have rendered it pointless in my context. > > It adds latency, is easily poisoned and rarely makes much difference > > to the score. I do appreciate some people like it, but my own view is > > spam has moved on beyond the point of it being useful. > > > Unless you're importing porn and viagra from Nigerian lawyers, I doubt > your circumstances make the difference between "one of the stronger > tools" and "pointless". So you might entertain the possibility that > you're are not doing it right. > Like I said, I disagree for the reasons I have given. > > > > > It's just as easy to make a bad one by bad training than a good > > > > one. > > > > > > Any system can be rendered useless by mismanagement. That's not a > > > flaw of the system, or a reason to discard it as pointless. And > > > GIGO will never become obsolete. > > > > > Set up bayes and make the commitment to train it properly and > > > you'll get good results. > > No thanks, I'll pass on that. In this specific case it still would not > > have increased the score to a point where the clock cycles made it > > worth it. > > > I doubt that's significant compared with the thousands of regular > expressions that SA runs. If Bayes slows down SA it's usually a > database problem. Well crafted accurate rules - that should really catch this very common type of spam - will always be very much preferable to something that can be easily broken by feeding it a mail full of junk words.
This is has drifted off topic. If you want to start a war bayes-v-non bayes go right ahead, but I don't want to play. I don't agree with you, but if you are happy with it then bully for you :-) -- ----------------------------------------------------------- C Werclick .Lot Technical incompetent Loyal Order Of The Teapot. This e-mail and its attachments is intended only to be used as an e-mail and an attachment. Any use of it for other purposes other than as an e-mail and an attachment will not be covered by any warranty that may or may not form part of this e-mail and attachment.
