Why is BAYES_00 -2.60 scoring low like this.

[shuttlebox]

On 2/14/07, Renee Gehlbach <krgehlba at lexairinc.com> wrote:
> Or better yet, use sa-learn to relearn any spam marked BAYES_00.  Or,
> for even better results, any spam not scoring BAYES_99.  (While learning
> suitable ham, too.)  The goal is not simply to lower the amount Bayes
> filtering messes up your scoring when it's wrong, continuing to permit
> it to assess spam incorrectly (if you don't want bayes to affect your
> scores, why use up the resources it requires?), but instead to have it
> actually correctly assess whether a message is in fact spam.

I agree with you on principle but to me Bayes is not as important as
it used to be. With spammers using real text it's hard for it to do a
good job. I would rather avoid the hassle of training it, to me it's
not worth the effort but YMMV.

-- 
/peter