New version

[Tom Anderson]

On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 07:46, Greg Louis wrote:
> robx        = 0.610600 (6.11e-01)
> robs        = 0.017800 (1.78e-02)
> min_dev     = 0.020000 (2.00e-02)
> ham_cutoff  = 0.281000 (2.81e-01)
> spam_cutoff = 0.532200 (5.32e-01)
> 
> gives me 1.1% fn and I haven't had an fp in 8 weeks now (150,000-odd
> messages).  Same basic setup: a somewhat spammy robx and minimal
> minimum deviation.  Unknowns bias the scoring spamward, which is ok,
> because -- especially these days -- spams do contain more unknowns. 
> Ok, at least, if you have enough registered nonspam to balance out that

Wow, that sounds incredibly dangerous.  If I sent you an email about a
subject you've never received before, maybe about igpe atinle, or
silghlty rareraegnd lteetrs, or lysdexia, or some obscure science or
sport with a strange vernacular, then you would likely classify it as
spam.  I'd much rather get it as unsure, and at least have a chance to
register it as spam once.  Therefore, the robx ought to be less than the
spam_cutoff if not within the min_dev range.  Biasing unknowns strongly
toward spam (above the cutoff and min_dev) is crazy IMHO.

Tom

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://www.bogofilter.org/pipermail/bogofilter/attachments/20040316/defe62ac/attachment.sig>