Is there a way to change this behavior? It seems to me that a high bayes score also shows that it is spam and it might be possible to grab a few new tokens from the spam which you otherwise wouldn't get.
Jon. On Friday 29 August 2003 12:22 pm, Tom Meunier wrote: > Somebody already answered the syntax for modifying your scores in your > local.cf, so... > > The auto-learn "bayes evaluator" doesn't take the Bayes scores into account > when deciding whether to learn as spam or ham. So you could have autolearn > threshold set to 10, have your Bayes tests at 20 points, and get a 29-point > spam come in, but not be sent through autolearn. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 11:43 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [SAtalk] Changing Bayes scoring > > > > > > Greetings, > > > > I'd like to increase the score for certain bayes > > confidence levels. My understanding is that I > > need to put one (or more) of these lines from > > /usr/locals/hare/spamassassin/23_bayes.cf: > > > > > > body BAYES_60 eval:check_bayes('0.60', '0.70') > > body BAYES_70 eval:check_bayes('0.70', '0.80') > > body BAYES_80 eval:check_bayes('0.80', '0.90') > > body BAYES_90 eval:check_bayes('0.90', '0.99') > > body BAYES_99 eval:check_bayes('0.99', '1.00') > > > > into /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf > > > > and in order to increase the scores from certain bayes confidence > > levels, make edits, such as: > > > > body BAYES_70 eval:check_bayes('0.70', '1.80') > > body BAYES_80 eval:check_bayes('0.80', '1.90') > > body BAYES_90 eval:check_bayes('0.90', '2.99') > > body BAYES_99 eval:check_bayes('0.99', '3.00') > > > > Or am I off the mark entirely? > > > > A good 80-90% of the spam that scores 4.3-4.9, while being all over > > the place wrt other scores (i.e. some have bad mime, some have bad > > html, some have bad times), they have bayes confidences of 70-99. > > As well the few lists that I'm on seem to get 3.5 to 4.5-ish scores, > > mostly for the bad html that comes from their MUA, yet have pretty > > consistent bayes confidences around 20-50%. > > > > So, it seems to me that I should rely a bit more on bayes, as just > > lowering the threshold will get a fair bit of ham. > > > > Yet, in doing so, does this feed back into the bayes evaluator? > > > > Cheers! > > -sam > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > > Welcome to geek heaven. > > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > > _______________________________________________ > > Spamassassin-talk mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > Spamassassin-talk mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
