43 lines
1.5 KiB
Plaintext
43 lines
1.5 KiB
Plaintext
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: <LNBBLJKPBEHFEDALKOLCCEPOBCAB.tim.one@comcast.net>
|
|
|
|
[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?
|
|
|