bogus bogotuning, was: What is a spamicity of exactly 0.5?

[Jason A. Smith]

Of course it will be used.  I would use it and I'm sure others would
also, that is the whole point here.  Are you telling me that if I have
1400 spam messages and use bogotune I will get completely garbage
results, but add 600 more spam and I will get a perfect result?  I don't
believe it.  What I object to is not even being allowed to run bogotune
on my sizable 1400 spam archive unless I patch the source myself or wait
several more months to reach this limit (I am lucky enough to only
average around 4-8 spam/day which means I would have to wait 3-5 more
months).  What is wrong with allowing users to run bogotune to produce
garbage results with an appropriate warning if that is what they want to
do (without modifying and recompiling the source)?  Why do you insist on
imprisoning the users with this limit?  If you are worried about
complaints that bogotune doesn't work then a HUGE OBNOXIOUS WARNING
should do the trick.  Not adding an option to turn off the limit and
forcing myself and everyone else who may want to disable it is wasting
all of our time by making each of us do the identical work of
maintaining a patch to disable it.  Computers are supposed to make out
lives easier, not harder.  I use Linux and opensource software so I can
have more freedom, not be confined and limited by software.  Why do you
insist on enforcing this 2k limit?  I think a warning that the results
may be completely useless is good enough.  At least I can follow its
output as my spam archive grows and I can then see for myself when I hit
this magical limit that suddenly causes bogotune to produce the perfect
answer.  I am not asking you to fix bogotune to work perfectly with
fewer messages, I am only asking for the option and to be allowed to run
it on fewer messages if I want to, even knowing that it might produce
useless results.  I don't understand how anyone can object to that.

Does anyone else have an opinion?

~Jason


On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 17:23, Greg Louis wrote:
> If that option is there, it will be used.  If it is used, laymen will
> get useless suggestions from bogotune and will get lousy results with
> bogofilter.  Should we clutter the code with bad options and then say,
> "actually this is a bad thing, don't use it"?  Isn't it better to let
> those who want to play do their own coding and keep the distributed
> version clean?
> 
> I really don't see it as onerous to keep a personal patch and patch
> bogofilter every time I install a new release.  Been doing it for over
> a year now, in fact.