[spambayes-dev] A spectacular false positive

Rob Hooft rob at hooft.net
Sat Nov 15 18:15:05 EST 2003

Tim Peters wrote:
> [Rob Hooft]
>>I am now training on all mistakes and unsures, plus all ham scoring
>>more than 0.02 and all spam scoring less than 0.99.
> Then why not reset your ham and spam cutoffs to 0.02 and 0.99, to match?
> Then you can describe the same thing as just "mistakes and unsures" (which
> is what I mean by "mistake-based training").

Because I still "never look" at anything that scores over 0.90. They are 
all spam. But the spammiest of those, the ones over 0.995, are not even 
used for training. At the ham-side you're right: it is the same.


Rob W.W. Hooft  ||  rob at hooft.net  ||  http://www.hooft.net/people/rob/

More information about the spambayes-dev mailing list