[spambayes-dev] RE: [Spambayes] How low can you go?

T. Alexander Popiel popiel at wolfskeep.com
Thu Dec 25 18:59:14 EST 2003

In message:  <LNBBLJKPBEHFEDALKOLCAEFAIAAB.tim.one at comcast.net>
             "Tim Peters" <tim.one at comcast.net> writes:
>Ah, I've noted before that I throw away half my Unsures unclassified,
>because I can't tell whether they're ham or spam

>No part of the testing framework can be talked into believing that
>Unsure is the *desired* outcome for a msg,

Hrm.  Good point.  Perhaps we should fix this, adding a third branch
to the testing framework's data directory tree, and then convincing
the test code to use messages in that third branch in the classify
phase, but not in the train phase.  And then we'd have the six
error states of ham->spam, ham->unsure, unsure->ham, unsure->spam,
spam->ham, and spam->unsure.

Hrm.  Not for me to do today, though... I'm still running more
variations of the stuff I posted about earlier.  Redoing the
fpfnunsure test that I did last March (with my new dataset so it's
comparable), and then adding in 200 day message expiry to my
nonedge regime.

- Alex

More information about the spambayes-dev mailing list