Keith C. Ivey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) replied: > 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.
Thanks, Keith, for pointing out the absence of tagging for the 0.4999 and .5001-scored messages. I'll take a look at that. And, I agree with you that having a lot of messages in that range seems a bit odd. > 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. I'll give that a try. I appreciate your comments Regards, Marc ------------------------------------------------------- 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
