Re: Tuning bogofilter
Tom Anderson <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.bogofilter.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
David Relson wrote: > We recommend against training over and over with the same messages as > it biases the wordlist. Training with ham and spam yields a wordlist > that indicates how often individual words (tokens) occur in ham and in > spam. For a simplified example: if "xyzw" occurs in 10% of your ham > and in 20% of your spam, then a message with "xyzw" is twice as likely > to be spam as it is to be ham. If you keep training with the same spam > you skew the results -- which is not recommended. I don't really see biasing a spam message as spam to be particularly problematic. If indeed a particular word ought to be hammier, then it will become so in the course of training your hams. My experience has been that sometimes you don't receive enough spams to make some tokens spammy enough, and I therefore train these spams multiple times until bogofilter recognizes them appropriately as spams. Otherwise, I will keep receiving them as false negatives. For instance, if "xyzw" has only occurred twice, but it is absolutely 100% always spammy and you never ever want to see it again, then just keep training on that spam until bogofilter recognizes it as such. This is as if you have received the spam many times, but without the inconvenience of actually having done so. When you later train a ham message which contains another token "abcd" which may have appeared alongside "xyzw" and is now spammier than it should have been, "abcd" will become hammier while "xyzw" remains very spammy. In the end, the result you want. As I see it, most of the English language should wind up essentially neutral in your wordlist, with only the truly hammy and spammy words standing out, like a whitelist and blacklist respectively. If some portion of the general language moves slightly hammy or spammy due to "over-training" some particular emails, it shouldn't have a large effect on the classification since it is largely only the trigger tokens which will ultimately decide it. If a message is so wishy-washy as to contain no such trigger tokens which are obviously hammy or spammy, or perhaps well-crafted enough to contain equal numbers of each, then it deserves to be marked unsure so that you can manually determine it. Tom _______________________________________________ Bogofilter mailing list [email protected] http://www.bogofilter.org/mailman/listinfo/bogofilter