[Spambayes] Any prospect of spambayes working with qmail?

[T. Alexander Popiel]

In message:  <16E1010E4581B049ABC51D4975CEDB886199E5 at UKDCX001.uk.int.atosorigin.com>
             "Moore, Paul" <Paul.Moore at atosorigin.com> writes:
>
>I know there have been some experiments in the past done on training
>methods, and they were basically inconclusive (IIRC). I guess what I'm
>wondering is whether there's anything new to say on the matter now that
>people have been running spambayes "for real" for a decent time.

I'm working on a bunch of graphs of accuracy over different types of
training.  It's just taking me a bit longer than expected (I'm having to
deal with cracked machines at the moment).

>One possibility I'd thought of is to do intermittent training - start
>with an empty database (or maybe one preseeded with a small representative
>message base), then train for a week or two (which will tune the DB a
>bit. Then stop training for a while (a couple of months) and then train
>on everything for a week. Repeat the stop/train cycle. The idea being
>that this would catch new spam techniques, without needing too much
>ongoing training. The downside is that I can see no way of testing this
>approach.

For building the graphs, I already have a testing harness which sorts
and processes the messages in a linear fashion, with various rules for
whether to train on a message or not.  This sounds like just another
rule for it.

>Hey - if I wrote up a small document on the various possible training
>methods (there aren't that many that I can think of) would that be of
>any use for the documentation?

Yes.  It'd also be a great source for rules for my testing harness.
If you make the doc, I may be able to provide graphs of accuracy to
go with it...

- Alex