spamassassin-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dianne Skoll <>
Subject Re: Matching infinite sets
Date Mon, 22 Aug 2016 17:50:08 GMT
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 10:44:42 -0700
Marc Perkel <> wrote:

> This is nothing like bayes.

It's exactly like Bayes.  You're stumbling across a hacked version of
Bayes.  You seem to lack the mathematical background to see what you're
doing, thinking it's somehow fundamentally different.  But it's not.

> The real magic is the feedback learning.

Which is how Bayes works.

> So as it identifies ham it learns new words and phrases that then
> match email from other people.

Which is what Bayes does.

> So it learns how normal people speak, it learns how spammers speak,
> and it identifies the DIFFERENCES between the two. And it's
> completely automated.

You've just described Bayes.  Paul Graham used almost that exact language
14 years ago in his classic paper,
Check out this paragraph:

    I'm more hopeful about Bayesian filters, because they evolve with the
    spam. So as spammers start using "c0ck" instead of "cock" to evade
    simple-minded spam filters based on individual words, Bayesian filters
    automatically notice. Indeed, "c0ck" is far more damning evidence than
    "cock", and Bayesian filters know precisely how much more.



View raw message