Simon Byrnand writes:
> What I was starting to think about, is maybe there could be a different
> weighting for auto-learning as compared to manual learning ?
>
> EG, the ability to give manual learning a lot stronger weight.
>
> I'm not sure how you'd go about that exactly, but maybe a --weight option
> could be added on sa-learn which basically multiplies the added token count
> of each token by a factor of up to say 10, for each token, which would give
> manually learnt ham/spam comparitively more effect than auto-learnt stuff.
> (Which would always have a factor of 1)
hmmm... that would work, actually... just make each manual learn op count as if N messages were learnt.
Un-learning would be a problem though - you'd have to record the weight that the message was learnt at along with the message ID, otherwise you wouldn't actually be unlearning it if you learnt it with a weight of 10 and unlearnt it with a weight of 1 :) (And the opposite possibility would no doubt have a strange effect)
Regards, Simon
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: VM Ware With VMware you can run multiple operating systems on a single machine. WITHOUT REBOOTING! Mix Linux / Windows / Novell virtual machines at the same time. Free trial click here: http://www.vmware.com/wl/offer/345/0 _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
