>
> Hm. Your experience differs from mine. I tried using bayes, spent
> hundreds of hours training bayes with lots of good mail from
> archives, and lots of bad mail, and never got better than .5% (point-
> five or .005) difference in spam detection. So we stopped using it.
>
> In comparison,
On Feb 21, 2007, at 11:42 PM, R Lists06 wrote:
Do you use bayes_auto_learn ?
I am sure you know I don't mean AWL baloney. ;-)
Hm. Your experience differs from mine. I tried using bayes, spent
hundreds of hours training bayes with lots of good mail from
archives, and lots of bad mail, an
>
> It's very simple. Tag messages above your soft limit and put them in a
> different folder. Check the folder periodically for false positives.
> Try to identify why they are FP.
>
> Look carefully at all of your normal mail, and confirm where it normally
> scores.
>
> Lower your score limit
