Message
From: qqqq [mailto:qqqq (AT) usermail (DOT) com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 10:27
To: Bowie Bailey; users (AT) spamassassin (DOT) apache.org
Subject: Re: Latest sa-stats from last week
| Holy spoo! Bayes can do MUCH better than that!
| {}
|
| I'm sure it can, but I've got per-user Bayes and most of my users
| don't bother to train it.
|
I'm in a similar situation as Bowie. I had to turn of Bayes
as mail that was obviously spam was getting a Bayes_0 pulling
the # back down under the threshold.
so why not just score BAYES_00, BAYES_20, etc all at at 0 and keep
BAYES_99, BAYES_95, etc scoring what they score. if you trust its spam
accuracy but not its ham accuracy, that would be the logical way to go i
would say?
d