A grumpy editor's bayesian followup
Posted Oct 3, 2006 19:52 UTC (Tue) by glardner
Parent article: A grumpy editor's bayesian followup
I am surprised you did not get a better result with POPFile. I have been using POPFile for about three years. Since November 2004 the stats are:
Messages classified 26,602
False positives 8 = 0.030%
False negatives 15 = 0.056%
Total false classifications 23 = 0.086%
Unclassified 167 = 0.628%
The total false classifications was lower before some new type of spam started arriving earlier this year; before that the total accuracy was 99.98% excluding messages unclassified; now it is just better than 99.91%.
I use POPFile in conjunction with Outlook; I have the Outclass user interface (from Vargonsoft) installed, which makes adjusting the training of POPFile very simple when it mis-categorises a message. I just wish there was an interface for POPFile similar to Outclass, but which works with Mozilla Thunderbird.
to post comments)