At Sun Aug 10 12:49:31 2003, Gerry Doris wrote: > > I don't understand why you need to run this against the normal non-spam > mail. Shouldn't all the ham have already passed through spamassassin and > be "learned".
No. When it comes to auto-learning, there are three classifications for messages - "learn as spam", "learn as ham", "don't learn". There's a significant safety margin between auto-learning spam and auto-learning ham, and within this margin the message is not auto-learnt. The logic behind this is to ensure that high-scoring non-spam is not learnt as spam, and that low-scoring spam is not learnt as non-spam. Auto-learning is very conservative, because mistakes can have an effect on the effectiveness of Bayesian filtering. > I manually move any spam that slipped through to my current mail to a spam > mailbox and then later do an sa-learn as spam on it. I've never bothered > to learn the ham or the spam that spamassassin has already passed > correctly. That's one approach, but it's not using the Bayesian capabilities to the full. Messages that SA is tagging as spam don't necessarily get autolearnt. Martin -- Martin Radford | "Only wimps use tape backup: _real_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | men just upload their important stuff -o) Registered Linux user #9257 | on ftp and let the rest of the world /\\ - see http://counter.li.org | mirror it ;)" - Linus Torvalds _\_V ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
