bogotune results

[Boris 'pi' Piwinger]

Tom Allison <tallison at tacocat.net> wrote:

>Well, it took a while, but this is what bogotune finally spit out as the 
>results.
>These are seom pretty weird numbers...
>I retested my archive and of the Ham I got: 3 Unsure and 1 Spam
>of the Spam I got: all spam.

Was this before or after running bogotune?

>The highest fpos (Spam) was 0.238562.  So I guess it's safe to set that 
>as my spam_cutoff for now.

Also: This is after changing the parameters?

>tallison at janus:~>  bogotune -n Maildir/.training.ham/cur/ -s 
>Maildir/.training.spam/cur/
>Calculating initial x value...
>Initial x value is 0.600000
>Too few high-scoring non-spams in this data set.
>At target 1, cutoff is 0.238562.

This here suggests that this is after choosing the initial
values by bogotune.

>Recommendations:
>
>---cut---
>db_cachesize=4
>robx=0.600000
>min_dev=0.020
>robs=0.0100
>spam_cutoff=0.069       # for 0.05% fpos (1); expect 0.00% fneg (0).
>#spam_cutoff=0.040      # for 0.10% fpos (2); expect 0.00% fneg (0).
>#spam_cutoff=0.020      # for 0.20% fpos (4); expect 0.00% fneg (0).
>ham_cutoff=0.020
>---cut---

So why does bogotune suggest those values? Zero false
positives were easily possible with a higher ham_cutoff.

The new values seem to give much lower values for your
problematic messages.

pi