A:
1 Answer
rank
1
|
A. Your problem might be that you've fed DSPAM thousands of spam, but have not fed it enough nonspam for it to learn adequately. It's typically a bad practice to feed a statistical filter a grossly unbalanced corpus of mail, and if you're using a version of DSPAM that has a "training buffer" enabled by default, feeding a ton of spam can also cause it to start watering down its results until you feed it more ham. This watering down gets stronger the higher your spam ratio is, in an attempt to prevent false positives - so the more spam you feed it, the worse your accuracy will get.
|
dspam.nuclearelephant.com
/faq.shtml
This link is broken. Help us!
Related Videos
Add your answer...
Top Answerers
1.
2.
3.
Top Askers
1.
2.
3.
Top Supporters
1.
2.
3.
I've fed DSPAM thousands of spam, and am only getting marginal accuracy. What's up?
Related Questions
- A. In real-world scenarios, false positives have ranged anywhere from 0% (none) to 0.10% depending on both ...
- A. While both share the common goal of eradicating spam, the two solutions bear very different philosophies. ...
- A. DSPAM doesn't have a whitelist manager, rather whitelisting is an automatic function of DSPAM's Bayesian ...
- A. DSPAM ignores attachments, javascript, and the like. Therefore, it does no filtering of viruses, however ...
- A. DSPAM can integrate with any MTA (Mail Transfer Agent) capable of calling dspam either as a local delivery ...