Re: New user and question
RW <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.bogofilter.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:03:32 -0400 Thomas Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/25/2010 12:51 PM, Doug wrote: > > I am new to Bogofilter. Had been using Spam Assassin for years and > > wanted to try You might want to try scoring Bogofilter into SpamAssassin, setting it for multiple word tokenization, so that it complements SpamAssassin's Bayes. I find that although Bogofilter (multiple word) and Bayes both FP occasionally they tend to do it on different mails, so it's legitimate to have both. I do something similar (I use DSPAM too), and I find that those that Bogofilter classifies as unsure usually pick-up enough SA points to get caught easily. > > My problem is the unsure's are not going down and the majority of > > them have Viagra in the subject. It is not obfuscated in any way. > > I see few if any Viagra emails in the spam mail. Am I doing > > something wrong? I have probably feed several hundred or more > > unsure's like this so far. Is there a way to strongly add a word. > > I recommend training to exhaustion. That is, when a false positive, > false negative, or unsure shows up, first you train it, then you > check it again as if the same exact email arrived another time, and > if it still doesn't classify correctly, train it again -- repeat > until it classifies correctly. In my my experience that's ineffective with default settings because the influence of new hapaxes and low-count tokens virtually guarantees correct identification on the second test - unless you use a very large value of "robs" that would be unsuitable for normal classification. It makes more difference if you do it iteratively on corpora. _______________________________________________ Bogofilter mailing list [email protected] http://www.bogofilter.org/mailman/listinfo/bogofilter