Accuracy is lacking

[Nick Simicich]

At 12:44 PM 2003-02-13 -0800, Tracy R Reed wrote:


>I don't get any false positives but it is missing a lot of spam. I would
>say 3/4 of the spam makes it into my inbox and only 1/4 gets filtered.
>Looking at the spamicity measurement in the header they all fall very near
>to 0.5. With bayespam the values for spam were always very high and
>non-spam very low so there were very few edge cases. Here everything seems
>to fall right on the line and most of it ends up in my inbox. I always
>send the misclassified spam back through bogofilter to correct the
>database but it does not seem to be gaining me anything.

The latest version of bogofilter seems to have seriously moved the line.  I 
have changed my spam cutoff to .38, and I am still getting no false 
positives.  I am considering moving it to .34.  This seems to be a uniform 
change - it has applied to a lot of my spam.

--
SPAM: Trademark for spiced, chopped ham manufactured by Hormel.
spam: Unsolicited, Bulk E-mail, where e-mail can be interpreted generally 
to mean electronic messages designed to be read by an individual, and it 
can include Usenet, SMS, AIM, etc.  But if it is not all three of 
Unsolicited, Bulk, and E-mail, it simply is not spam. Misusing the term 
plays into the hands of the spammers, since it causes confusion, and 
spammers thrive on  confusion. Spam is not speech, it is an action, like 
theft, or vandalism. If you were not confused, would you patronize a spammer?
Nick Simicich - njs at scifi.squawk.com - http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html
Stop by and light up the world!