bogotune results

[Tom Allison]

Boris 'pi' Piwinger wrote:
>>>Was this before or after running bogotune?
>>
>>After.
>>Before my test results in 100.00% scores.
> 
> 
> So actually bogotune gave results worse than your orignal
> settings. Interesting.
> 

I had trained everything repeatedly on these 4000+ emails to get 100% 
scores.  I was surprised to see how high ham_cutoff we set.  It is equal 
to the highest single ham score.  I would have expected a nudge up from 
there to avoid the 1 fpos.

> 
>>Yeah, I guess I can keep bumping up the cutoffs.
>>I set ham_cutoff=0.24 and spam_cutoff 0.4 for now.
> 
> 
> Why don't you set both to the same. If you get an unsure or
> a false negative, you have to deal with it either way. You
> don't expect any ham in unsure anyway.
> 

I guess I could, but I use the unsure range as a buffer.
Currently I'm delivering Unsure mail and using that "bucket" for 
additional training on new messages.  Because of this, I don't really 
mind Unsure ham as I don't count it as a false reading.

I'm going to play with these numbers a bit more in the coming months, 
but I'm surprised at the results from bogotune.