quick-n-dirty parameter tuning, was Re: compile time options

[Greg Louis]

On 20030930 (Tue) at 1254:46 -0400, Tom Anderson wrote:
> We could set a counter and only tune after X number of emails have been
> registered since the last time it was tuned.  Vary X by the total number
> of emails in the database.

Yes, that might work quite well.

> It's of course important to take account of the overhead of the tune
> operation, but balance that with the overhead of improperly classifying
> email and needing to correct it.  The more you tune, in the end, the
> less you'll actually have to tune, right?
> 
Certainly!

-- 
| G r e g  L o u i s         | gpg public key: 0x400B1AA86D9E3E64 |
|  http://www.bgl.nu/~glouis |   (on my website or any keyserver) |
|  http://wecanstopspam.org in signatures helps fight junk email. |

Header information for this message:
Subject: Re: quick-n-dirty parameter tuning, was Re: compile time options
     To: bogofilter <bogofilter at aotto.com>
   From: Greg Louis <glouis at dynamicro.on.ca>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 211 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.bogofilter.org/pipermail/bogofilter/attachments/20030930/e275f411/attachment.sig>