Hi,
Does anyone have any evidence (empircal or anecdotal) as to how well
2.5x fares against 2.4x using Bayes sitewide with minimal training (no
more than SA does when autolearning)?
It's my understanding (BICBW) that most of the PHRASE rules disappeared
in 2.5x in favour of Bayes. Which is all w
On Sat, 2003-05-31 at 22:30, William Stearns wrote:
> Good evening, Guenther,
Good morning, William,
> > How can I do that? Did not find any note, how to define a site wide
> > BAYES database. TIA
>
> http://www.stearns.org/doc/spamassassin-setup.current.html#autoreporting
Now that page looks
Good evening, Guenther,
On 30 May 2003, guenther wrote:
> How can I do that? Did not find any note, how to define a site wide
> BAYES database. TIA
http://www.stearns.org/doc/spamassassin-setup.current.html#autoreporting
Cheers,
- Bill
--
> >Would it be wise (actually, would it do any harm) to have one BAYES
> >database for a whole site, instead of per-user basis? (Just a hand full
> >of users.)
>
> There are some advantages and some drawbacks here. On the advantage side as
> it learns from the spam of one user it can apply those
At 01:45 AM 5/30/2003 +0200, guenther wrote:
hey folks,
Would it be wise (actually, would it do any harm) to have one BAYES
database for a whole site, instead of per-user basis? (Just a hand full
of users.)
There are some advantages and some drawbacks here. On the advantage side as
it learns from
hey folks,
Would it be wise (actually, would it do any harm) to have one BAYES
database for a whole site, instead of per-user basis? (Just a hand full
of users.)
How can I do that? Did not find any note, how to define a site wide
BAYES database. TIA
...guenther
--
char *t="[EMAIL PROTECTED]";
