bi/tri states with -u (was Re: religion)

[Barry Gould]

>At 08:09 AM 1/22/2003, Matt Armstrong wrote:
>
>I went on using -u with Robinson-Fischer without realizing that it
>wasn't training on unsures.  I think -u is much less useful with an
>'unsure' state.
>
>To rectify this, I think either:
>
>     (a) There should be an option to turn Robinson-Fisher into a
>         binary algorithm (i.e. treat 'unsure' as 'good').  Call it the
>         "benefit of the doubt" option.
>
>     (b) -u should update the 'good' list with 'unsures'

You can use robinson-fisher in binary mode,

OR, if you want to see the Unsures in your MUA, AND you want to train in 
binary:

it's simple to do this in procmail if you also use -p

Right now, I do this:

#noupdate
:0fw
| bogofilter -e -p

# if bogofilter failed, return the mail to the queue, ...
:0e
{ EXITCODE=75 HOST }

#update spam db iff it was spam
:0c
* ^X-Bogosity: Yes, tests=bogofilter
| bogofilter -s

one could add an ELSE bogofilter -n (whatever procmails ELSE syntax is)

Barry


>I vote for both!  But if (a) happens, (b) comes for free.
>
>I vote for (a) because I don't much care if the filter is unsure or
>not, I just want to know if the message *is* SPAM.  If it is, put it
>in the SPAM folder.  If it isn't, filter it to wherever else it'll go.
>If there is a false negative, I will catch it and retrain bogofilter
>regardless of whether it was 'unsure' or 'good'.
>
>I vote for (b) as well.  If -u updates an 'unsure' as 'good' and the
>message really is good, I have no additional work to do.  If -u
>updates an 'unsure' as 'good' and the message is SPAM, I'll notice
>eventually and retrain.