From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <04748aeba9f1d96bbf44451f8c131ef2@plan9.escet.urjc.es>
From: Fco.J.Ballesteros <nemo@plan9.escet.urjc.es>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] spam filtering fs
In-Reply-To: <88fd25c4b29b0d3dcf8b2629d0259786@yourdomain.dom>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="upas-zxtteezptalanqztdzjkzdsalj"
Date: Mon,  1 Sep 2003 16:41:33 +0200
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 280e4cda-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--upas-zxtteezptalanqztdzjkzdsalj
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

You could assume that all mails that have not classified as spam, are not
spam. I could then simply define a `S' script and run it from acme to
let you know which ones are spam. But if rsc has one already done, we'd
better use his interface as is.
--upas-zxtteezptalanqztdzjkzdsalj
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Received: from mail.cse.psu.edu ([130.203.4.6]) by aquamar; Mon Sep  1 16:38:20 MDT 2003
Received: by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server, from userid 60001)
	id C314119BF6; Mon,  1 Sep 2003 10:38:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu (psuvax1.cse.psu.edu [130.203.30.6])
	by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP
	id 92C0C19BE7; Mon,  1 Sep 2003 10:38:09 -0400 (EDT)
X-Original-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Delivered-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Received: by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server, from userid 60001)
	id 2754419B14; Mon,  1 Sep 2003 10:37:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from larch (unknown [195.173.15.12])
	by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 4C90319BF1
	for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Mon,  1 Sep 2003 10:36:57 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <88fd25c4b29b0d3dcf8b2629d0259786@yourdomain.dom>
From: steve.simon@snellwilcox.com
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] spam filtering fs
In-Reply-To: <758707399@snellwilcox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu
Errors-To: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu
X-BeenThere: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
List-Id: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans.cse.psu.edu>
List-Archive: <https://lists.cse.psu.edu/archives/9fans/>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 15:36:56 +0100
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.9 required=5.0
	tests=IN_REP_TO,NO_REAL_NAME,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM
	version=2.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp)

The problem with the "upas/spam -y <spammail" approach is that the
word frequency tables need to be kept up to date for the best results,
and making the user type this in is unlikely to do this.

If you forget to add a new strain of spam or valid emails to the tables they
will not continue to learn and thus the threshold of spamminess used will
drift from the optimum - you will start to lose valid emails or get more spam.

An important feature of a user interface for baieien spam classifiers is
the equal ease with which the user can submit spam and valid emails to
the training code, otherwise the whole system becomes biased in favour
of least effort for the user :-)

-Steve
--upas-zxtteezptalanqztdzjkzdsalj--