[REBOL] Re: fighting spam paper & links / naive bayes / anybody ?
From: brett:codeconscious at: 26-Aug-2002 19:32
> << I ran it on a small set of spam and good emails - and it worked
> beautifully until I realised that my logic was different to Paul's. :^)
> Then I fixed it and it didn't work so good :^( >>
>
> I hope the broken one, that worked better, is still available for
> comparison. :)
The broken program calculated the "interesting" words to be the words with
the *highest* 15 probabilities of being spam - instead of calculating the
highest variance from 0.5. So with small sample sizes it looked like it was
working really well, but I doubt that it would work in all cases. Probably
worth testing against a good set of emails.
Regards,
Brett.
