[spambayes-dev] auto-training w/ small db seems like a bad idea

[Eli Stevens (WG.c)]

Skip Montanaro wrote:

>     Anthony> My anecdotal experience (based on a couple of days now) is that
>     Anthony> small DB/non-edge training has done wonderful things for the
>     Anthony> accuracy of the results. Mind you, if I hadn't made the changes
>     Anthony> to the training API, it'd be a pain in the arse <wink>.
> 
> "small DB/non-edge training" may very well be a great idea.  In fact, I
> started from scratch yesterday based upon your email praising the idea.
> Auto-training with small databases where you are likely to get more false
> positives seems like a bad idea though.

Is there a regime that simulates what you had been doing manually? 
*nudge*wink*nudge*  I've actually been wanting to dig into the 
incremental.py stuff more; if you could provide more detail about how 
you choose your inital training set, etc. I'd be happy to try whipping 
something up when more free time rolls around (likely not until this 
weekend).

Eli