Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> The one thing I had *not* been doing, but started to do as of last
> night, is to use the false-negatives to explicitly train the Bayesian
> filter.
[snip]
As you've discovered, the hard way, one must constantly train Bayesian
filters. This means that every false positive has to be fed back
through it with whatever means your version uses to tell it "No, this
was *not* spam," and every false negative, the converse.
--
Jim Seymour | Spammers sue anti-spammers:
jseymour@LinxNet.com | http://www.LinxNet.com/misc/spam/slapp.php
http://jimsun.LinxNet.com | Please donate to the SpamCon Legal Fund:
| http://www.spamcon.org/legalfund/