[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Ifile-discuss] Improving classification of spams
From: |
Booker Bense |
Subject: |
Re: [Ifile-discuss] Improving classification of spams |
Date: |
Mon, 13 Jan 2003 09:03:59 -0800 (PST) |
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Jason Rennie wrote:
>
> address@hidden said:
> > Booker Bense <address@hidden>:
> >
> > > - So far, I've had very good luck with the spam/non-spam issue,
> > > however I have hybrid system where I index everything, but only
> > > use ifile as a last resort. (i.e. I have a bunch of prefilters
> > > based on the sender/headers if none of those match see what ifile
> > > suggests. ) Every message is indexed by ifile after it gets
> > > filtered.
> >
> > i discontinued doing this thinking that i'd prevent ifile to see some
> > of the spam and therefore not training it correctly.
>
> Using ifile the way Booker does is perfectly fine. It's actually better
> for the overall system performance if you first remove mailing lists and
> e-mails that you can filter deterministically. The key is to ensure that
> you don't train ifile on such e-mails. There's no chance that you'll be
> using ifile to filter mail, so allowing ifile to filter there will only
> increase the number of errors.
>
- I actually have ifile index the email lists. So far, it's been
more useful than painful[1] and since there are some lists that
get spam I an intending to use ifile on those lists as well,
haven't written the code yet though.
- Booker C. Bense
[1]- I have a few low volume lists that I aggregate into a single
mail folder, ifile works great for doing this automagically. I
find that I'm having to do a lot less tweaking of my filters to
compensate for wierd mailling list software. Right now, when I
join a list, I wait and see what ifile does with it. If it does
the "right" thing, then I don't bother with adding new filters.
- Re: [Ifile-discuss] Improving classification of spams,
Booker Bense <=