On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 10:44:42 -0700 Marc Perkel <supp...@junkemailfilter.com> wrote:
> This is nothing like bayes. It's exactly like Bayes. You're stumbling across a hacked version of Bayes. You seem to lack the mathematical background to see what you're doing, thinking it's somehow fundamentally different. But it's not. > The real magic is the feedback learning. Which is how Bayes works. > So as it identifies ham it learns new words and phrases that then > match email from other people. Which is what Bayes does. > So it learns how normal people speak, it learns how spammers speak, > and it identifies the DIFFERENCES between the two. And it's > completely automated. You've just described Bayes. Paul Graham used almost that exact language 14 years ago in his classic paper, http://www.paulgraham.com/spam.html Check out this paragraph: I'm more hopeful about Bayesian filters, because they evolve with the spam. So as spammers start using "c0ck" instead of "cock" to evade simple-minded spam filters based on individual words, Bayesian filters automatically notice. Indeed, "c0ck" is far more damning evidence than "cock", and Bayesian filters know precisely how much more. Regards, Dianne.
