From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/54522 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Training for ham and training for spam Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:50:42 -0500 Organization: =?koi8-r?q?=F4=C5=CF=C4=CF=D2=20=FA=CC=C1=D4=C1=CE=CF=D7?= @ Cienfuegos Sender: ding-owner@lists.math.uh.edu Message-ID: <4n65i7vn59.fsf@lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu> References: <76u15ru93j.fsf@newjersey.ppllc.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1067457113 28741 80.91.224.253 (29 Oct 2003 19:51:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 19:51:53 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+M3063@lists.math.uh.edu Wed Oct 29 20:51:50 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from malifon.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.13]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AEwMA-00083m-00 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:51:50 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by malifon.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 1AEwLz-00040I-00; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:51:40 -0600 Original-Received: from justine.libertine.org ([66.139.78.221]) by malifon.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 1AEwLv-00040D-00 for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:51:35 -0600 Original-Received: from clifford.bwh.harvard.edu (clifford.bwh.harvard.edu [134.174.9.41]) by justine.libertine.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 497F93A004D for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:51:34 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu (lockgroove [134.174.9.133]) by clifford.bwh.harvard.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.11.0) with ESMTP id h9TJp5724198; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:51:05 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: (from tzz@localhost) by lockgroove.bwh.harvard.edu (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.0) id h9TJoh329944; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:50:43 -0500 (EST) Original-To: Jake Colman X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6;d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" Mail-Followup-To: Jake Colman , ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: <76u15ru93j.fsf@newjersey.ppllc.com> (Jake Colman's message of "Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:39:28 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.3.50 (usg-unix-v) Precedence: bulk Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:54522 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:54522 On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, colman@ppllc.com wrote: > Is it truly necessary to train for ham or can I just train for spam. > I have a number of mailing lists that filter into their own folders > and are mostly spam-free. Is there any benefit to classifying them > as ham folders and specifying an exit processor? Or will it just > add processing time? Training for ham is useful, and pretty much every statistical filter recommends it. The decision of whether it's worth the CPU time and memory is up to you and depends on the particular filter. > On the other hand, I have a group that mostly gets spam so I have > classified it as a spam group and I do pass it through the exit > processor. > > Does this make sense? Sure. Ted