bogotune results

[Boris 'pi' Piwinger]

Greg Louis wrote:

>> >>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.
>> >
> Bogotune can't look for zero false positives; it has to look for at
> least one.

Why? You could just take the highest scoring ham and take a
bigger value (provided this is possible).

> You can't influence false positives with the ham cutoff; it sets the
> boundary between nonspam and unsure.  A false positive is a nonspam
> that scores above the spam cutoff.

Right. OTOH you can see any unsure as a failure.

pi