On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 11:05 -0400, Claude Jones wrote: > On Wed May 10 2006 10:37 am, Aaron Konstam wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 17:57 -0400, Claude Jones wrote: > > > On Tue May 9 2006 5:44 pm, Aaron Konstam wrote: > > > > My objection to spambayes is theit assertion that > > > > classifying mail into three catagories spam, ham and > > > > unknown does not make for better spam detection. > > > > > > Could you explain? I've read their site many times, and have > > > never come across this assertion. I just looked at the faq, > > > and I see no such claim. They talk quite matter-of-factly > > > about dealing with "unsure" classified messages, but there's > > > nothing said about using such classification "does not make > > > for better spam detection". Maybe I've missed something... > > > > Now I am confused. The spambayes people are constantly saying > > that there classification method makes for better > > classification of spam. Do you have an extra "not" in your > > statement. > > hmmmm.....methinks there's a communication gap, here > Their classification method uses ham, spam, and unsure - we > agree? > > Your words - "classifying mail into three catagories spam, ham > and unknown does not make for better spam detection." > > Your operative word is "not" - I think they are asserting that > their classification system "does" make for better spam > detection, in that it classifies "maybes" differently, and gives > you the option of routing them where you wish for later > classification/training, by use of the tag in the header. First, I am soory I spouted off at you. You are right the spambayes people are asserting that their method is better. You are also right that I do not agree with them. So what, we disagree. Both systems work well in classifying spam. Both systems when run correctly put special tags on the spam. Both systems require training to work properly. I used spambayes when it first appeared. At that time it was clear: 1. That is was designed to with with Outlook . 2. The Linux support for POP and IMAP did not work. I am glad to hear they now work. 3. I was a member of the spambayes mailing list. I could not find anyone wlse posting to the mailing list that was using this product in Linux. I hope I did not understand you to say that when you used spamassassin you did not implement training on the baysian database using your mail stream. That will not allow spamassassin to work effectively. -- Aaron Konstam <akonstam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
