Quoting Bart Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It's usually easier to promptly re-learn a false negative as spam than
> it
> is to re-learn a false positive as ham, because FNs probably go right
> into
> your mailbox while FPs are dropped in a quarantine (or worse). Unless
> you're not paying atten
-Original Message-
From: David A. Carter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 5:10 PM
To: Robert Strickler
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Habeas mark and auto-learning as ham
Robert:
Just in case you didn't realize, you sent this only to me and not to the
entire list.
Quoting Bart Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It's usually easier to promptly re-learn a false negative as spam than
> it
> is to re-learn a false positive as ham, because FNs probably go right
> into
> your mailbox while FPs are dropped in a quarantine (or worse). Unless
> you're not paying atten
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, David A. Carter wrote:
> What does concern me is how SpamAssassin should deal with Habeas marks,
> which clearly *is* on-topic. Specifically, should SpamAssassin
> auto-learn Habeas-marked messages as ham, as it does today?
This is no different than the question "Should SpamA
At 05:26 PM 1/12/2004, David A. Carter wrote:
I do agree the Habeas folks will need to act quickly and completely so the
effect of forgeries is minimized. However, this doesn't mean SpamAssassin
needs to be a sitting duck for such forgeries. I think if you just stop
bayes from auto-learning habeas-
> Anyway, what do others think about this?
I personally turned off auto-learning some time ago and it seems that SA's
effectiveness has been quite good, and *remained* good. I do train it
manually with stuff that it missed, but that's pretty much the only training
I do.
johnS
-
