Gordon Cormack said: > In supervised mode, positive feedback is exactly what you want. > > For the reasons that I've mentioned before, the lack of feedback in the > current setup causes the system to 'learn' progressively less accurate > information.
BTW supervised mode is pretty trivial to set up; copy all spam to mbox 1 and all ham to mbox 2 after SpamAssassin has diagnosed them, then learn those mboxes periodically. It can be done from procmail as far as I know... > The proof would, of course, be in a controlled experiment. I may do this > some day by re-classifying my last 5000 messages with and without my > modification, but I can assure you that I haven't heard any screeching > noises eminating from my mailbox. What I have observed is < 0.2% false > positives and < 1.0% false negatives. Yes, testing would be valuable in this. --j. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU Attention Web Developers & Consultants: Become An INetU Hosting Partner. Refer Dedicated Servers. We Manage Them. You Get 10% Monthly Commission! INetU Dedicated Managed Hosting http://www.inetu.net/partner/index.php _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
