{"references": ["S. M. Weiss and N. Indurkhya. Predictive data mining practical guide.\nMorgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, 1998.", "James Manyika, Michael Chui, Brad Brown, Jacques Bughin, Richard\nDobbs, Charles Roxburgh, and Angela Hung Byers. Big data: The next\nfrontier for innovation, competition and productivity. Technical report,\nMcKinsey Global Institute, May 2011.", "Jiban K Pal , Usefulness and applications of data mining in extra cting\ninformation from different perspectives, Annals of Library and\nInformation Studies, Vol. 58, March 2011, pp. 7-16", "http://www.radicati.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Email Market\n-2012-2016-Executive-Summary.pdf.", "Data Mining/ Data Warehousing Mosud Y. Olumoye Lagos State\nPolytechnic, S.P.T.S.A. & Director of Operations, Fiatcom Nig. Ltd.\nNigeria.", "G. Piatetsky-Shapiro and W. J. Frawley. Knowledge Discovery in\nDatabases. AAAI/MIT Press, 1991.", "J. Han, M. Kamber, Data Mining: Concepts and Techniques, Morgan\nKaufmann, San Francisco, 2001.", "Sita Gupta, Vinod Todwal, Web Data Mining & Applications,\nnternational Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT)\nISSN: 2249 \u20138958, Volume-1, Issue-3, February 2012.", "Data mining classification Fabriciovoznika Leonardoviana\n[10] George Dimitoglou, James A. Adams, and Carol M. Jim, Comparison of\nthe C4.5 and a Naive Bayes Classifier for the Prediction of Lung Cancer\nSurvivability.\n[11] Seongwook Youn, Dennis McLeod, A Comparative Study for Email\nClassification.\n[12] Yoav Freund and Llew Mason. The Alternating Decision Tree\nAlgorithm. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on\nMachine Learning, pages 124-133 (1999).\n[13] Bernhard Pfahringer, Geoffrey Holmes and Richard Kirkby, Optimizing\nthe Induction of Alternating Decision Trees, Proceedings of the Fifth\nPacific-Asia Conference on Advances in Knowledge Discovery and\nData Mining. 2001, pp. 477-487.\n[14] Anshul Goyal and Rajni Mehta, Performance Comparison of Na\u00efve\nBayes and J48 Classification Algorithms, International Journal of\nApplied Engineering Research, ISSN 0973-4562 Vol.7 No.11 (2012).\n[15] Tina R. Patil, Mrs. S.S. Sherekar, Performance Analysis of Na\u00efve Bayes\nand J48 Classification Algorithm for Data Classification, Internationl\nJpournal of Computer Science And Applications, Vol. 6, No.2, Apr\n2013.\n[16] Xiang yang Li, Nong Ye, A Supervised Clustering and Classification\nAlgorithm for Mining Data With Mixed Variables, IEEE Transactions\non Systems, man, and Cybernetics, Vol. 36, No. 2, 2006, pp. 396-406.\n[17] https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/Spambase (Accessed online on\nJanuary 2016).\n[18] http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/. (Accessed online on January 2016)."]}

Classification is an important data mining technique and could be used as data filtering in artificial intelligence. The broad application of classification for all kind of data leads to be used in nearly every field of our modern life. Classification helps us to put together different items according to the feature items decided as interesting and useful. In this paper, we compare two classification methods Naïve Bayes and ADTree use to detect spam e-mail. This choice is motivated by the fact that Naive Bayes algorithm is based on probability calculus while ADTree algorithm is based on decision tree. The parameter settings of the above classifiers use the maximization of true positive rate and minimization of false positive rate. The experiment results present classification accuracy and cost analysis in view of optimal classifier choice for Spam Detection. It is point out the number of attributes to obtain a tradeoff between number of them and the classification accuracy.