Mailman 3 February 2004 - spambayes-dev

Suggestion
by Bolt Feb. 18, 2004

Feb. 18, 2004

I love how SpamBays works, but I have a suggestion.............. When I find SPAM that was not caught by Spam Bays, it would be great if there was an option that I could set so that when I click on the "Delete as Spam" button, it actually moved the item to the Deleted Items folder instead of the Spam folder (where I have to go and manual delete the items anyway - I suspect that this is a MS Outlook issue). Anyway, keep up the great work. Bolt

1 0

RE: [spambayes-dev] problems with 0.9 plug-in & installation
by Tony Meyer Feb. 15, 2004

Feb. 15, 2004

> 1) It doesn't install over 0.8 cleanly. After closing all > outlook processes, and runing the 1.0a9 installer, and > reloading outlook, version 0.8 was still the active plug-in. > I had to remove 0.8 and then install 0.9. I think (Mark will probably correct this if I'm wrong), that this is a consequence of changing the installation method (installer->py2exe, or maybe the installer program instead of Inno's regserver). Anyway, the instructions in the notes do tell you to do this: """ * If you have an existing version of the Outlook addin installed, please uninstall it via Control Panel->Add/Remove Programs. This will not remove your training or configuration information. """ > Incidentally, > removing 0.8 doesn't remove the spambayes toolbar correctly. This is a (very old!) known bug. <http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=675811&group_id=61 702&atid=498103> =Tony Meyer

1 0

observations on 0.9 plug-in
by Seth Goodman Feb. 14, 2004

Feb. 14, 2004

I just un-installed the 0.81 binary and installed the 0.9 binary. Here are a couple of observations: 1) As someone else reported, asking Spambayes to check for the latest version reports that I am currently running 0.81. The Spambayes Manager correctly reports that the installed version is 0.9. 2) The log file message that the failure to create toolbar message is normal is a big improvement. Would be better if the FAILURE message wasn't there at all, but if that was easy, it would already be fixed. 3) Log file has message that it is watching the spam folder for incremental training, though I have that option unchecked. It does not train when I move a message into that folder, so the option works correctly. There is just an incorrect log file message. 4) Viewing message tokens is still a bit annoying due to two problems, probably both hard to do anything about: a) when closing the message, it asks if you want to save changes even though none were made b) after closing, the message changes from unread to read, so I have to manually restore the state to unread (the FAQ does say no one know how to fix this) -- Seth Goodman

2 2

bad web link
by Seth Goodman Feb. 13, 2004

Feb. 13, 2004

On the Windows page for the new version, http://spambayes.sourceforge.net/windows.html, the link to release notes near the top of the page takes you to the release notes for version 0.8 rather than the new version. -- Seth Goodman

3 2

RE: [spambayes-dev] train to exhaustion?
by Tony Meyer Feb. 13, 2004

Feb. 13, 2004

[Skip] > Did anyone see Gary Robinson's blog (and related pages) about > train-to-exhaustion? Justin Mason posted a reference on > the spambayes list. Like Tim, I read it then, and then heard someone (Bill Yerazunis?) mention it while I was watching the 2004 MIT Spam Conference webcasts. [Skip] > Does one of the incremental training regimens implement it under a > different name? > > Don't think so, although the fpfnunsure regime seems to > correspond closely to one *pass* of TTE. TTE is like running > fpfnunsure repeatedly, starting each pass with the trained > database from the end of the last pass (and starting with an > empty training database), until results stop improving. By "results stop improving", do you think that the intention is that the same number of messages are misclassified, or that the scores stop getting better? (ie. if one message was still a false-positive, but moved from 0.8 to 0.7, is that improving?). I've written up a regime to do this with the incremental.py setup, or at least I hope so :) It's damn slow, though. I can't get it to run at any speed that's any good unless I only use a very recent portion (like 2 days) of mail for the retesting. With my data, and this setup (allowing mail to be trained more than once, and using the latest 2 days of mail), I found it gave better results than fpfnunsure, but still not as good as nonedge (apart from very early on, when all sorts of weird things happen with all the regimes, and I think is an artefact of that mail). <http://www.massey.ac.nz/~tameyer/research/spambayes/exhaustion.html> has graphs, a bit more in the way of write-up, and also some output from Skip's tte.py script. =Tony Meyer

4 9

problems with 0.9 plug-in & installation
by Ryan Malayter Feb. 13, 2004

Feb. 13, 2004

1) It doesn't install over 0.8 cleanly. After closing all outlook processes, and runing the 1.0a9 installer, and reloading outlook, version 0.8 was still the active plug-in. I had to remove 0.8 and then install 0.9. Incidentally, removing 0.8 doesn't remove the spambayes toolbar correctly. 2) The "check for newer version" menu selection still reports 0.8 is installed, and that there is no newer version available. The spamBayes manager screen, however, reports v0.9 is active. Everything else in the upgrade seemed okay. Ryan Malayter Sr. Network & Database Administrator Bank Administration Institute Chicago, Illinois, USA PGP Key: http://www.malayter.com/pgp-public.txt ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Only the mediocre are at their best all the time.

1 0

RE: [spambayes-dev] Problem with 1.0a9 Windows installer?
by Tony Meyer Feb. 13, 2004

Feb. 13, 2004

> I unregistered my source version and ran the installer myself, and I > got the same result. What version of Outlook/Windows are you using? I tried it and it worked fine, using Outlook XP SP2, with Windows XP Pro SP1. The OP was Outlook 2k with WinNT (French, but I doubt that makes a difference, or that you are using French). > I'm heading off to take a look at this now, but wanted to give > everyone a heads up in case someone wants to pull (or hide, or > whatever) the installer from SourceForge until we can sort this out. Only those reading the -dev list know that the 1.0a9 (0.9) release is there (and those that have stumbled across it while looking at the sourceforge site, I suppose), so it should be ok to leave it active rather than hidden. This way at least those here can give it a go without going through convoluted loops to get hold of it. > OK, I've taken a look and it appears that registering > the addin using the outlook_addin_register executable during install > does two things differently than registering the addin DLL directly > with regsvr32: > * outlook_addin_register sets the DLL path in InprocServer32 to > "pythoncom23.dll", while regsvr32 sets it to > "<installation_path>\bin\outlook_addin.dll" I get the installer setting it to "<installation_path>\bin\outlook_addin.dll". > * outlook_addin_register does not create the PythonCOMPath key The installer does this for me, too. =Tony Meyer

3 4

Re: [spambayes-dev] train to exhaustion?
by T. Alexander Popiel Feb. 12, 2004

Feb. 12, 2004

In message: <16428.889.749153.651608(a)montanaro.dyndns.org> Skip Montanaro <skip(a)pobox.com> writes: > > Kenny> I would think, then, that you would keep going as long as the > Kenny> score indicates that you are getting closer to correct > Kenny> classification. > >And stop once all ham score at or below the ham_cutoff and all spam score at >or above the spam_cutoff. Of course, this process is not guaranteed to ever complete; consider the case where you have two messages with identical token lists (perhaps in different orders?) and one is marked as ham and the other is marked as spam. At best, you could get them both classified as unsure. - Alex

1 0

RE: [spambayes-dev] Problem with 1.0a9 Windows installer?
by Tony Meyer Feb. 12, 2004

Feb. 12, 2004

> Interesting. I used the SF installer and it did register as > outlook_addin.dll. I didn't get the PythonCOMPath key, but > the addin worked fine in Outlook all the same. > > I looked at the version number on python23.dll and noticed > that the SF installer was built using the Python 2.3.2 > release. I've updated to 2.3.3 so my local version was built > with that. I'd be interested to know what results others get > when rebuilding with 2.3.3. I'm using Python 2.3.3, so I build a local copy of the installer and tried it and it worked here, too, so I guess that's not it. > As it is, I can't begin to guess > whether this is due to differences in 2.3.3, or to some other > configuration difference unique to my system. It must be some other difference, I suppose, although this still doesn't explain the problem that the OP had, since he was presumably using the one from sf. Hmm... If Mark doesn't find time to make the release announcement today, I will - if people find that it fails, then we'll just have to act really quickly and get a 1.0a9.1 (0.91) release out. Hopefully, people should find that this one is much better. =Tony Meyer

1 0

RE: [spambayes-dev] Outlook Addin files on SourceForge
by Tony Meyer Feb. 11, 2004

Feb. 11, 2004

[Kenny Pitt] > Would it make sense to list the "spambayes-1.0a9.exe" installer under > both the "spambayes" and "Outlook Addin" sections? [Seth Goodman] > Yes, or possibly deprecate the Outlook add-in section with an > explanatory if it is now redundant. The plan is to set the Outlook Addin package to "Hidden", which means that it won't be visible at all, so they won't be able to select it. One hopes that they are then clever enough to look at the most recent release and get the installer from there. If we end up getting "where has the installer gone?" questions, we could always add a note to the page explaining the situation. I suspect that the majority of people will download it directly from the link on the windows.html page, or in the announcement email, anyway. =Tony Meyer

1 0