[spambayes-dev] RE: [Spambayes] SpamBayes old and new

[Tim Peters]

[T. Alexander Popiel]
> Sorry, yes, I should have included the comparison report just for
> completeness; however, since prior discussion had suggested the change
> was a bad idea and because the results were quite so dramatic (and I
> was in a hurry), I didn't bother.
>
> In any case, my result looked remarkably like Tim's, so I'll just let
> his be the canonical example. ;-)

You don't get off that easy, Alex <wink>.  In

http://mail.python.org/pipermail/spambayes-dev/2003-November/001581.html

you said:

    I'm currently testing against my RL data, which is between
    60% and 70% spam overall (rising to about 90% spam in recent
    weeks).

so your ratio favored spam, at about 1::2 ham::spam, while my ratio strongly
favored ham, at about 4::1 ham::spam.  It's fishy then that we would both
see reduction in FP and massive increase in FN -- our biases were in
different directions.

However, since the basic idea appears to suck no matter who tests it, I'll
forgive you if you don't want to beat it to death <wink>.