Re: Bogofilter accuracy plummets starting around March 10, 2010
David Relson <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.bogofilter.general |
|---|---|
| Organization | Osage Software Systems, Inc. |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 13:11:12 +0400 Dmitry wrote: > Jonathan Kamens wrote: > > I also fed my entire old ham and spam corpuses through spamitarium > > and then wiped out my word list and recreated it from scratch using > > the new corpuses. > > > > > > > > In the day since I made these changes, I've gone from 79% accuracy > > to <http://stuff.mit.edu/~jik/#spam> >99% accuracy, so either all > > the spam of the type that that was confusing bogofilter has > > suddenly stopped (unlikely!) , or these changes were quite > > successful. > > Dear bogofilter maintainers, > > May I ask again to make a config option "do not process invisible > headers"? It is so obvious that ommiting invisible headers improves > bogofilter accuracy in spite of what theory says. Why do we need > another tool like spamitarium just to remove additional work instead > of not doing that work at all? > > -- > Dmitry Hello Dmitry, "Invisible headers" is not a term I recognize. If you wish to have particular headers ignored, I suggest you let grep do the work, i.e. pipe your message through an appropriate "egrep -v "^(this|or|that):" command. HTH, David _______________________________________________ Bogofilter mailing list [email protected] http://www.bogofilter.org/mailman/listinfo/bogofilter