Networking

NAVIGATION
CATEGORIES
REFERRENCE
LINKS
  • Latest sa-stats from last week

    2 answers - 817 bytes - related search similar search Add To My Delicious Add To My Stumble Upon Add To My Google Mark Add To My Facebook Add To My Digg Add To My Reddit

    Michael Monnerie wrote:
    Dienstag, 9. Mai 2006 16:18 Bowie Bailey wrote:
    I've got per-user Bayes and most of my users
    don't bother to train it.
    Another reason for site-wide bayes, I'd say.
    I've considered that, but it won't work in our setup. This box scans
    our internal email as well as all of our customer's email. Since we
    are in an entirely different line of business from our customers, what
    we consider to be ham and spam will be quite different from theirs.
    If I could train it on both sets, it might work, but I don't have
    access to any of their emails for training.
    Also, I really prefer a per-user bayes for our internal email since
    there are various accounts that get a specific type of ham and work
    very well with Bayes.
  • No.1 | | 1450 bytes | |

    Dienstag, 9. Mai 2006 17:14 Bowie Bailey wrote:
    I've considered that, but it won't work in our setup. *This box scans
    our internal email as well as all of our customer's email. *Since we
    are in an entirely different line of business from our customers,
    what we consider to be ham and spam will be quite different from
    theirs. If I could train it on both sets, it might work, but I don't
    have access to any of their emails for training.

    I believe that's a general mistake. I've got a server with many diff.
    domains, some people working with china, others with brazil, many
    different languages, and so on. With site wide bayes which is only
    trained _by me_, I've not had a single complaint in years where bayes
    was incorrect.

    Real SPAM is really SPAM. For everybody. Those penis enlargements,
    viagra and drug ads, and false job offers are really ever SPAM. And if
    somebody wants to get those info about penis enlargement, he should
    just look in his SPAM folder, it's not getting deleted anyway.

    If you are sane and try to not make mistakes with bayes, it works
    phantastic. I've got about 6.000 spam & ham, and everyday I feed the
    new SPAM to bayes for learning.

    Try it: keep some real SPAM, use site-wide bayes without auto-learn.
    Feed at least 200 spam & ham to bayes, and train it every day. You will
    be happy.

    mfg zmi
  • No.2 | | 1126 bytes | |

    From: "Bowie Bailey" <Bowie_Bailey (AT) BUC (DOT) com>

    Michael Monnerie wrote:
    >Dienstag, 9. Mai 2006 16:18 Bowie Bailey wrote:
    >I've got per-user Bayes and most of my users
    >don't bother to train it.
    >
    >Another reason for site-wide bayes, I'd say.


    I've considered that, but it won't work in our setup. This box scans
    our internal email as well as all of our customer's email. Since we
    are in an entirely different line of business from our customers, what
    we consider to be ham and spam will be quite different from theirs.
    If I could train it on both sets, it might work, but I don't have
    access to any of their emails for training.

    Also, I really prefer a per-user bayes for our internal email since
    there are various accounts that get a specific type of ham and work
    very well with Bayes.

    Importune on them to feed you as large a collection of ham and spam
    as they can, once. Then turn on autolearn, cross your fingers, and
    put on your flack jacket.

    {}

Re: Latest sa-stats from last week


max 4000 letters.
Your nickname that display:
In order to stop the spam: 3 + 3 =
QUESTION ON "Networking"

EMSDN.COM