On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 02:20:33 +0100 Karsten Bräckelmann <guent...@rudersport.de> wrote:
> Even the most effective results I have ever seen on a non-personal > attack is merely getting the Bayes classification to a neutral. And > that was not a "regular" text token, but includes mail headers. And a > biased Bayes database towards some specific mail headers that spam > run happened to use... I agree with Karsten. In my experience, trying to be too clever with restricting what Bayes sees backfires. I find that throwing everything into the mix and letting the Bayes algorithm sort out what's important and what isn't gives the best results. Regards, David.
