From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,626842fa695f2fdf
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-17 14:11:07 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!attbi_s53.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: tmoran@acm.org
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GC, existed? the foreigner
References: <bubi82$euq6c$1@ID-125932.news.uni-berlin.de>
X-Newsreader: Tom's custom newsreader
Message-ID: <_piOb.76064$5V2.91744@attbi_s53>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.161.24.134
X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net
X-Trace: attbi_s53 1074377466 67.161.24.134 (Sat, 17 Jan 2004 22:11:06 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 22:11:06 GMT
Organization: Comcast Online
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 22:11:06 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4505
Date: 2004-01-17T22:11:06+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> > The initial description of Baysian filters included a rule that
> > anything unrecognized was considered 10% chance of being spam. In
> ...
> and have been using Naive Bayesian filtering ever since; there is NO
> such rule in the code I use, and I have never seen such a rule in the
> scientific literature.
   Bayes Theorem has to do with modifying probability estimates based on
data.  But there must be some initial (a priori) estimate to start with.