[pLog-svn] r6088 - plog/branches/lifetype-1.2/class/security

Oscar Renalias oscar at renalias.net
Fri Nov 30 13:47:38 EST 2007

So can this issue be closed by placing the Bayesian filter at the end  
of the pipeline chain?

On Nov 30, 2007, at 6:48 AM, Jon Daley wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Mark Wu wrote:
>> Why can't we just put the bayesian filter in last order? it seems  
>> solve this
>> problem easier.
> 	Does that fix everything?  It is certainly the easiest (coding and  
> performance) wise.
> 	With my thinking it seems like that fixes it - at least for now,  
> because we don't have any other plugins that would use the inputs of  
> others.  And we can maybe do Mark's priority idea if we ever need  
> that sort of thing.
> 	As long as it works for Paul's stuff, I think that sounds good. So,  
> then we should take Mark's rev 6088 or whatever it is and use that,  
> but modify it to pass in the previouslyRejected flag, and then put  
> the bayesian at the end.
>> BTW,  most lifetype installations in CJK site does rely on Bayesian  
>> Filter to protect the spam attack. Because the tokenize algorithm  
>> can't separate CJK into each atomic token. We don't use stop words  
>> and "white space" to seperate a paragraph into "word".
> 	I am not sure what you are saying.  It seems like you are saying  
> the tokenizer doesn't work, so then it seems that the bayesian  
> filter wouldn't be very good at all...
> 	Well, it's been 10 minutes since I read your idea of simply putting  
> the bayesian filter at the end, and haven't come up with a reason  
> why it won't work.  So, probably good.  Do you want to do it, or me?
> -- 
> Jon Daley
> http://jon.limedaley.com/
> Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong.
> -- Oscar Wilde_______________________________________________
> pLog-svn mailing list
> pLog-svn at devel.lifetype.net
> http://limedaley.com/mailman/listinfo/plog-svn

More information about the pLog-svn mailing list