Return-Path: anthony@interlink.com.au
Delivery-Date: Thu Sep 12 01:23:51 2002
From: anthony@interlink.com.au (Anthony Baxter)
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 10:23:51 +1000
Subject: [Spambayes] Current histograms 
In-Reply-To: <LNBBLJKPBEHFEDALKOLCKEJBBDAB.tim.one@comcast.net> 
Message-ID: <200209120023.g8C0NpQ18478@localhost.localdomain>



> How were these msgs broken up into the 5 sets?  Set4 in particular is giving
> the other sets severe problems, and Set5 blows the f-n rate on everything
> it's predicting -- when the rates across runs within a training set vary by
> as much as a factor of 25, it suggests there was systematic bias in the way
> the sets were chosen.  For example, perhaps they were broken into sets by
> arrival time.  If that's what you did, you should go back and break them
> into sets randomly instead.  If you did partition them randomly, the wild
> variance across runs is mondo mysterious.

They weren't partitioned in any particular scheme - I think I'll write a
reshuffler and move them all around, just in case (fwiw, I'm using MH 
style folders with numbered files - means you can just use MH tools to 
manipulate the sets.)


> For whatever reason, there appear to be few of those in BruceG's spam
> collection.  I added code to strip uuencoded sections, and pump out uuencode
> summary tokens instead.  I'll check it in.  It didn't make a significant
> difference on my usual test run (a single spam in my Set4 is now judged as
> ham by the other 4 sets; nothing else changed).  It does shrink the database
> size here by a few percent.  Let us know whether it helps you!

I'll give it a go.


-- 
Anthony Baxter     <anthony@interlink.com.au>   
It's never too late to have a happy childhood.

