Marc Steuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've got Bayes working with SA 2.60 and occasionally, a scanned > message will not have an entry for its Bayes score in the > detailed listing of pts, rule name and description. Is this > "normal" behavior?
That happens surprisingly often for me, too. If you look at the definitions for the BAYES_* rules in 20_bayes.cf, you'll see that messages with Bayes scores between 0.4999 and 0.5001 are not tagged. When I've checked the spamd log for messages that haven't got BAYES_*, they've always scored somewhere in that range. A surprising number of messages have such scores. It does seem a bit fishy. > Also, some messages are given very low Bayes scores but are > assessed as spam by SA with "hits" from it's other rules. If I > run sa-learn on these messages, will that improve the Bayes > scores for similar future messages? I've had that happen too, especially for Nigerian scam mail, for some reason. Running sa-learn on them should help. That's what I've been doing. -- Keith C. Ivey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Washington, DC ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email sponsored by: Enterprise Linux Forum Conference & Expo The Event For Linux Datacenter Solutions & Strategies in The Enterprise Linux in the Boardroom; in the Front Office; & in the Server Room http://www.enterpriselinuxforum.com _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
