From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.user/961
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Alex Schroeder <alex@emacswiki.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.user
Subject: Re: spam-stat.el 0.0.4
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 04:42:18 +0200
Message-ID: <87ptwb7gxh.fsf@emacswiki.org>
References: <873ct78wpr.fsf@emacswiki.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1138667815 9110 80.91.229.2 (31 Jan 2006 00:36:55 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:36:55 +0000 (UTC)
Original-X-From: nobody Tue Jan 17 17:28:24 2006
Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.gnus
X-Face: ^BC$`[IcggstLPyen&dqF+b2'zyK#r.mU*'Nms}@&4zw%SJ#5!/7SMVjBS7'lb;QK)|IPU5U'o1'522W4TyzB3Ab*IBo^iw]l4|kUbdZuUDO6=Um-.4IzhNiV'B"@K#jy_(wW|Zbk[34flKY^|PrQ?$u2\fKg^]AY>wOX#H32i
Original-Followup-To: gnu.emacs.help
User-Agent: Gnus/5.090008 (Oort Gnus v0.08) Emacs/21.2.90
 (i686-pc-linux-gnu)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JtQ/X7N4P2RrO8+Rr/oFHf4Ji+Y=
Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.162.239.43
Original-X-Trace: news.swissonline.ch 1029984043 217.162.239.43 (22 Aug 2002 04:40:43 +0200)
Original-X-Complaints-To: abuse@swissonline.ch
Original-Path: quimby.gnus.org!lackawana.kippona.com!news.stealth.net!news.stealth.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!colt.net!diablo.theplanet.net!newspeer.lavaseals.co.uk!zen.net.uk!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.swissonline.ch!not-for-mail
Original-Xref: bridgekeeper.physik.uni-ulm.de gnus-emacs-gnus:1101
Original-Lines: 49
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1101   Tue Jan 17 17:28:24 2006
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.user:961
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.user/961>

Alex Schroeder <alex@emacswiki.org> writes:

> ;; I used 323 mails in my spam directory, and 180 mails in my mail
> ;; directory.  SpamAssassin is installed on my server.  The result of
> ;; my tests:  Testing spam -- 293 / 324 = 0.904321 (10% of the spam
> ;; missed), testing non-spam -- 6 / 180 = 0.033333 (3% false
> ;; positives!).

Ich checked these 6 false positives (this would be a major problem):

1. only one mpg file
2. bounced mail, includes three jpg files
3. only one mp3 file
4. this really is spam
5. this is really not spam at all -- a portuguese mail
6. only one tar file

No 5 can be explained by the very small number of portuguese mails in
the sample.  Here is the debug output.  As you can see, the common
words "para" and "esta" account for most of the high scores.


spam-stat-score-data's value is shown below.

Documentation:
Raw data used in the last run of `spam-stat-score-buffer'.

Defined in `/home/alex/elisp/spam-stat.el'.

Value:
(("para" 0.99 0.49)
 ("para" 0.99 0.49)
 ("esta" 0.99 0.49)
 ("dia" 0.01 0.49)
 ("para" 0.99 0.49)
 ("Sascha" 0.01 0.49)
 ("schroeder" 0.01 0.49)
 ("Sascha" 0.01 0.49)
 ("esta" 0.99 0.49)
 ("para" 0.99 0.49)
 ("Hm" 0.01 0.49)
 ("que" 0.99 0.49)
 ("que" 0.99 0.49)
 ("Porto" 0.01 0.49)
 ("para" 0.99 0.49))


ATM I do not feel too bad about the false positives.  I hope that
these will disappear with a larger training set.