Steven D'Aprano, Sun, 05 Jul 2009 11:58:28 +1000: > The missus uses Thunderbird, and as near as we can tell, its spam > filtering is crap. She found false negative rates approaching 50% (half > the actual spam was flagged as good) and false positive rates > approaching 10% (one out of ten good emails was flagged as spam).
No, it isn't, but the problem is that as every Bayesian filter (and I am a big fan of them), it needs a lot of training. Thunderbird trying to be easy of use hides its users from this ugly fact[1] and delivers some kind of generalized set of trained data for some generalized entity eliminating by it the biggest strength of Bayesian filters, which is that they are unpredictable by spammers and indivualized to ones mailing patterns. If properly trained (by several THOUSAND of BOTH spam and ham messages), it can work pretty well. Best, Matěj ------------------ 1) see for example http://bogofilter.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/ bogofilter/trunk/bogofilter/doc/bogofilter-tuning.HOWTO.html for thorough discussion of the issues related. _______________________________________________ Pan-users mailing list Pan-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-users
