On Jul 10, 2014, at 5:17 PM, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
On 7/10/2014 at 3:35 PM, "David F. Skoll" wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 12:25:50 -0700
>> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>
>>> Fundamentally I think the problem is with attachments.
>>
>> No, the problem is not with attachments. An attachme
Is there some reason that the BAYES_99 + BAYES_999 score does not add up
to 5.0?
I'm trying to "trust the defaults". But what would be the hazards of
leaving BAYES_99 at 3.5 and upping BAYES_999 to 1.5? It seems that I
should be able to trust Bayes to declare a message spam on its own.
-Stev
On 07/12/2014 07:35 PM, Steve Bergman wrote:
Is there some reason that the BAYES_99 + BAYES_999 score does not add up
to 5.0?
per default, no "single* SA rule should tag a msg as spam.
I'm trying to "trust the defaults". But what would be the hazards of
leaving BAYES_99 at 3.5 and upping BAY
On 12. jul. 2014 19.35.10 CEST, Steve Bergman wrote:
>Is there some reason that the BAYES_99 + BAYES_999 score does not add
>up to 5.0?
+1
>I'm trying to "trust the defaults". But what would be the hazards of
>leaving BAYES_99 at 3.5 and upping BAYES_999 to 1.5? It seems that I
>should be able
On 07/12/2014 12:41 PM, Axb wrote:
per default, no "single* SA rule should tag a msg as spam.
I'm trying to "trust the defaults". But what would be the hazards of
leaving BAYES_99 at 3.5 and upping BAYES_999 to 1.5? It seems that I
should be able to trust Bayes to declare a message spam on it
