[Spambayes] Re: Training oddity/confusion
tameyer at ihug.co.nz
Thu Jan 13 06:00:42 CET 2005
> I was doing a kind of manual "train to exhaustion", and the
> other thing I noticed was that the spam took a lot more
> training to make classification accurate (currently 82 ham :
> 409 spam, out of a total training set of 644 : 1414). I guess
> this simply means that my spam is a lot less consistent than my ham.
With 'classic' train to exhaustion, the database is kept exactly balanced, I
believe. How well is your system working for you?
> BTW, I also found a trick in Outlook to be able to train on a
> given spam more than once, to force correct classification.
> Normally this doesn't work because the plugin sees the two
> messages as identical, but creating the copy in an IMAP
> folder seems to fool it.
Creating a copy in any store should work, I think. IIRC Tim pointed this
out many many moons ago, although that was before Gary's blog about tte.
Please always include the list (spambayes at python.org) in your replies
(reply-all), and please don't send me personal mail about SpamBayes.
http://www.massey.ac.nz/~tameyer/writing/reply_all.html explains this.
More information about the Spambayes