On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Craig Carriere wrote:
Does this really mean that auto-learn is "out of balance"? My first
guess is that this site probably relies only on SA to combat spam and
does little at the MTA level to reject UBE mail. They may even run a
catch-all account which would markedly incre
Does this really mean that auto-learn is "out of balance"? My first
guess is that this site probably relies only on SA to combat spam and
does little at the MTA level to reject UBE mail. They may even run a
catch-all account which would markedly increase his spam count if he is
not rejecting for
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Faisal N Jawdat wrote:
On Apr 18, 2007, at 4:26 PM, Robert Fitzpatrick wrote:
Thanks, we are rebuilding bayes and now have in SQL with auto learn on, is
that good? Now has over 25K spam, but just 180 ham.
You *really* want to train with more ham than spam.
I have a hard
On Apr 18, 2007, at 4:26 PM, Robert Fitzpatrick wrote:
Thanks, we are rebuilding bayes and now have in SQL with auto learn
on, is that good? Now has over 25K spam, but just 180 ham.
You *really* want to train with more ham than spam.
-faisal
On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 10:23 -0500, Craig Carriere wrote:
> Robert:
>
> It sounds like your problem rests with your bayes database. Some SA
> rules will fire on almost all mail, but a properly trained bayes filter
> should be able to reduce your scores to under your spam threshold. None
> of thes
Robert:
It sounds like your problem rests with your bayes database. Some SA
rules will fire on almost all mail, but a properly trained bayes filter
should be able to reduce your scores to under your spam threshold. None
of these scores rate out very aggressively so I am surprised that these
are
Our bayes was apparently giving negative scores incorrectly and I
re-built it since it was not effective and letting through a lot of
spam. I didn't realize, but it seems those negative scores were keeping
SA from applying other tests? Since fixing bayes, we are blocking so
much ham it is not funny
