used to be the default spam learning score.
Loren
- Original Message -
From: "Rolf Loudon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 4:53 PM
Subject: retraining bayes question (Was: bayes_99 matching since sa-update)
hello
I have been trying t
hello
I have been trying to retrain my BayesDB to correct whatever
strangeness had crept in to show a dramatically different numbers of
spam and ham in the output of sa-learn --dump magic.
As recommended below I collected 420 messages each of spam and ham and
checked for wrongly assessed
What's a
"sa-learn --dump magic" output look like?
# sa-learn --dump magic
0.000 0 3 0 non-token data: bayes db
version
0.000 0297 0 non-token data: nspam
0.000 0 982365 0 non-token data: nham
0.000 0
Rolf Loudon wrote:
>
>> What's a
>> "sa-learn --dump magic" output look like?
>
> # sa-learn --dump magic
> 0.000 0 3 0 non-token data: bayes db version
> 0.000 0297 0 non-token data: nspam
> 0.000 0 982365 0 non-token d
hi
I use sa-update with channels and updates.spamassassin.org.
After the latest run today I am getting matches against BAYES_99
(which adds 3.5) to many messages, where they previously triggered
virtually no rules at all.
This is causing many false positives, to the extent that I've had
Rolf Loudon wrote:
> hi
>
> I use sa-update with channels and updates.spamassassin.org.
>
> After the latest run today I am getting matches against BAYES_99
> (which adds 3.5) to many messages, where they previously triggered
> virtually no rules at all.
>
> This is causing many false positive
hi
I use sa-update with channels saupdates.openprotect.com and
updates.spamassassin.org.
After the latest run today I am getting matches against BAYES_99
(which adds 3.5) to many messages, where they previously triggered
virtually no rules at all.
This is causing many false positives, t
