Return-Path: tim.one@comcast.net Delivery-Date: Sun Sep 8 21:46:47 2002 From: tim.one@comcast.net (Tim Peters) Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 16:46:47 -0400 Subject: [Spambayes] hammie.py vs. GBayes.py In-Reply-To: <200209070351.g873pC613144@pcp02138704pcs.reston01.va.comcast.net> Message-ID: [Guido] > There seem to be two "drivers" for the classifier now: Neale Pickett's > hammie.py, and the original GBayes.py. According to the README.txt, > GBayes.py hasn't been kept up to date. It seemed that way to me when I ripped the classifier out of it -- I don't think anyone has touched it after. > Is there anything in there that isn't covered by hammie.py? Someone else will have to answer that (I don't use GBayes or hammie, at least not yet). > About the only useful feature of GBayes.py that hammie.py doesn't (yet) > copy is -u, which calculates spamness for an entire mailbox. This > feature can easily be copied into hammie.py. That's been done now, right? > (GBayes.py also has a large collection of tokenizers; but timtoken.py > rules, so I'm not sure how interesting that is now.) Those tokenizers are truly trivial to rewrite from scratch if they're interesting. The tiny spam/ham collections in GBayes are also worthless now. The "self test" feature didn't do anything except print its results; Tester.py since became doctest'ed and verifies that some basic machinery actually delivers what it's supposed to deliver. > Therefore I propose to nuke GBayes.py, after adding a -u feature. +1 here. > Anyone against?