From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Subject: Re: [9fans] tactic
From: Dave Lukes <davel@anvil.com>
To: 9fans <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <001001c417f0$5b952f30$34fea8c0@SOMA>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403310737130.9002-100000@maxroach.lanl.gov>
	 <001001c417f0$5b952f30$34fea8c0@SOMA>
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <1080835687.17780.568.camel@zevon>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu,  1 Apr 2004 17:08:07 +0100
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4c49b1e2-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> bayesian doan work.
No, not in the absolute sense, but neither does anything else.

I've yet to see anything that works better than SpamAssassin
in a "real" situation (i.e. no "please confirm ..." etc.)

At the moment, we're getting slightly more spam than usual,
probably due to all the markov stew the spammers are using:
the tuning becomes somewhat more critical:
e.g. if I have insomnia and dump the spam into the processor
through the night, the intra-day spam drops off by ~~%50.

BTW, FYI:
I'm backpedalling rapidly on SPF:
it looks like it already has enough traction to  do some good ...

Also SPF will, hopefully, allow us to "sharpen" bayesian filters
by allowing through the good stuff and thus not polluting the filters so
much.

	Dave.