Boris 'pi' Piwinger
3.14 at logic.univie.ac.at
Wed Mar 24 07:26:31 EST 2004
Greg Louis wrote:
>> >>spam_cutoff=0.069 # for 0.05% fpos (1); expect 0.00% fneg (0).
>> >>#spam_cutoff=0.040 # for 0.10% fpos (2); expect 0.00% fneg (0).
>> >>#spam_cutoff=0.020 # for 0.20% fpos (4); expect 0.00% fneg (0).
>> >So why does bogotune suggest those values? Zero false
>> >positives were easily possible with a higher ham_cutoff.
> Bogotune can't look for zero false positives; it has to look for at
> least one.
Why? You could just take the highest scoring ham and take a
bigger value (provided this is possible).
> You can't influence false positives with the ham cutoff; it sets the
> boundary between nonspam and unsure. A false positive is a nonspam
> that scores above the spam cutoff.
Right. OTOH you can see any unsure as a failure.
More information about the Bogofilter