On 31/05/16 20:20, Bill Cole wrote:
It is no shock that while this implementation has Paul Stead's name on it, it is apparently mostly the product of the anti-spam community's most spectacular case of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, who has apparently figured out that his personal 'brand' has negative value.
The implementation was undertaken from a personal interest - I asked the question of what people thought of the implementation and the impact to Bayes DB. Thank you everyone for the feedback - I certainly didn't expect quite as much! I know this isn't an attack specifically towards me but at least this got the conversational juices flowing and more ideas hammered out?
The craziest part of this is that we already HAVE this functionality outside of the SA Bayes filter. It's called SpamAssassin. Perkel's concept files in Stead's plugin could be robotically translated into sub-rules and meta-rules, run through the normal Rules QA mechanism, and dynamically scored. There is no reason to hide this stuff behind Bayes where it would be mixing a jumble of derivative meta-tokens into a database of case-normalized primitive tokens, amplifying an arbitrary subset of the information already present in the Bayes DB.
I think a bit of time in the dev talk might be needed for me before I go ahead with a "concept" - I didn't intend to come across as selling this as the next FUSSP or anything - and I agreed with the initial responses of the list, hence not carrying on the conversation further. Paul -- Paul Stead Systems Engineer Zen Internet
