Re: bayesian filter training

Robert Menschel wrote: Hello Matias, Friday, February 11, 2005, 5:32:10 AM, you wrote: MLB> The sa-learn man page says that for a good training of the MLB> Bayesian filter, you need to train it with equal amounts of spam MLB> and ham, or more ham if is possible. So if I sa-learn the spam MLB> folde

Re: bayesian filter training

Robert Menschel wrote: Hello Matias, Friday, February 11, 2005, 5:32:10 AM, you wrote: MLB> A couple of weeks ago I started storing the spam flagged messages MLB> by SA. Currently, I have like 20400 messages stored, I'm planing MLB> to sa-learn them, but now I got another question ;) MLB> The sa

Re[2]: bayesian filter training

Hello Matias, Friday, February 11, 2005, 5:32:10 AM, you wrote: MLB> A couple of weeks ago I started storing the spam flagged messages MLB> by SA. Currently, I have like 20400 messages stored, I'm planing MLB> to sa-learn them, but now I got another question ;) MLB> The sa-learn man page says

Re: bayesian filter training

Matt Kettler wrote: At 05:06 PM 2/10/2005, Matias Lopez Bergero wrote: It is worth to train the bayes filter with messages already detected and flagged as spam by spamassassin? That would do any good? Yes. And even if they are already flagged as BAYES_99 it is still worthwhile. Many thanks for th

Re[2]: bayesian filter training

Hello Peter, Friday, February 11, 2005, 4:17:33 AM, you wrote: PM> but would that not mean that the bayes filter will learn the headers PM> that spam assassin adds as spam .. and then after a while only start PM> classing mail that already has the spam headers as bayes_99 ? No, since the sa-lear

Re: bayesian filter training

Am Freitag, 11. Februar 2005 17:58 schrieb Matt Kettler: > At 11:15 AM 2/11/2005, Matías López Bergero wrote: > >The sa-learn man page says that for a good training of the Bayesian > >filter, you need to train it with equal amounts of spam and ham, or more > >ham if is possible. So if I sa-learn th

Re: bayesian filter training

Matt Kettler wrote: At 11:15 AM 2/11/2005, Matías López Bergero wrote: The sa-learn man page says that for a good training of the Bayesian filter, you need to train it with equal amounts of spam and ham, or more ham if is possible. So if I sa-learn the spam folder, the spam tokens are going to grow

Re: bayesian filter training

At 11:15 AM 2/11/2005, Matías López Bergero wrote: The sa-learn man page says that for a good training of the Bayesian filter, you need to train it with equal amounts of spam and ham, or more ham if is possible. So if I sa-learn the spam folder, the spam tokens are going to grow a lot compared to h

Re: bayesian filter training

At 07:17 AM 2/11/2005, Peter Marshall wrote: but would that not mean that the bayes filter will learn the headers that spam assassin adds as spam .. and then after a while only start classing mail that already has the spam headers as bayes_99 ? I really do not know, I am just asking. Erm.. no. B

Re: bayesian filter training

Matt Kettler wrote: At 05:06 PM 2/10/2005, Matias Lopez Bergero wrote: It is worth to train the bayes filter with messages already detected and flagged as spam by spamassassin? That would do any good? Yes. And even if they are already flagged as BAYES_99 it is still worthwhile. Many thanks for th

RE: bayesian filter training

> but would that not mean that the bayes filter will learn the > headers that spam assassin adds as spam .. and then after a > while only start classing mail that already has the spam > headers as bayes_99 ? You can set bayes to ignore certain header. See the documentation for more info. I wou

Re: bayesian filter training

Jason, I accidently deleted your reply before I could read it ... would you mind re-sending it ... my apologies ... Peter Matt Kettler wrote: At 05:06 PM 2/10/2005, Matias Lopez Bergero wrote: Just a question, It is worth to train the bayes filter with messages already detected and flagged as sp

Re: bayesian filter training

Am Freitag, 11. Februar 2005 13:17 schrieb Peter Marshall: > but would that not mean that the bayes filter will learn the headers > that spam assassin adds as spam .. and then after a while only start > classing mail that already has the spam headers as bayes_99 ? > > I really do not know, I am jus

Re: bayesian filter training

ple with procmail. This would lead to a false database. Thomas > Ravi > > -Original Message- > From: Matias Lopez Bergero [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 3:36 AM > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: bayesian filter training > &

Re: bayesian filter training

but would that not mean that the bayes filter will learn the headers that spam assassin adds as spam .. and then after a while only start classing mail that already has the spam headers as bayes_99 ? I really do not know, I am just asking. Peter Matt Kettler wrote: At 05:06 PM 2/10/2005, Matias

RE: bayesian filter training

Its require when you rebuild the database. Ravi -Original Message- From: Matias Lopez Bergero [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 3:36 AM To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: bayesian filter training Hi Just a question, It is worth to train the bayes filter

Re: bayesian filter training

At 05:06 PM 2/10/2005, Matias Lopez Bergero wrote: Just a question, It is worth to train the bayes filter with messages already detected and flagged as spam by spamassassin? That would do any good? Yes. And even if they are already flagged as BAYES_99 it is still worthwhile. The reason why is tha

bayesian filter training

Hi Just a question, It is worth to train the bayes filter with messages already detected and flagged as spam by spamassassin? That would do any good? BR, Matías.