bogotune results

[Tom Allison]

Boris 'pi' Piwinger wrote:
> 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?
After.
Before my test results in 100.00% scores.
> 
> 
>>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?
Yes, previously was all default except robx=0.60
> 
> 
>>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.
> 

Yeah, I guess I can keep bumping up the cutoffs.
I set ham_cutoff=0.24 and spam_cutoff 0.4 for now.