Claudia Burman wrote:
Gary V wrote:
I use spamassassin (last perl version, updated it last week) on a mail
server, called from amavisd-new. I've set the $sa_kill_level_deflt to
5.00, if I lower this I get too many false positives.
I haven't touched any of the rules. I regularly train the baye
Gary V wrote:
I use spamassassin (last perl version, updated it last week) on a mail
server, called from amavisd-new. I've set the $sa_kill_level_deflt to
5.00, if I lower this I get too many false positives.
I haven't touched any of the rules. I regularly train the bayesian
filter
with false
I use spamassassin (last perl version, updated it last week) on a mail
server, called from amavisd-new. I've set the $sa_kill_level_deflt to
5.00, if I lower this I get too many false positives.
I haven't touched any of the rules. I regularly train the bayesian filter
with false negative messages.
Are you using the URIBLs? You should be doing better than that.
- Original Message -
From: "Claudia Burman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 8:59 AM
Subject: percentage of spam getting through
| Hi, I'm new to the list and I guess th
I haven't touched any of the rules. I regularly train the bayesian filter
with false negative messages. I'm using local tests only.
My statistics show that only 60-65% of the spam messages are correctly
tagged as spam. I would like to hear from another spamassassin users if
they get similar figure
Hi, I'm new to the list and I guess this question was asked many times,
but I can't find this in the archives.
I use spamassassin (last perl version, updated it last week) on a mail
server, called from amavisd-new. I've set the $sa_kill_level_deflt to
5.00, if I lower this I get too many false posi
