At Fri Jan 23 19:44:34 2004, Brett Dikeman wrote: > > Also- maybe it's just me, but it seems rather silly to not allow the > user to auto-learn messages that have been whitelisted, either sitewide > or user-specific. Could someone a)explain the reasoning here and b)tell > me how to change this? It is almost completely contrary to what we > want- any addresses we've whitelisted are guaranteed to be sending > legitimate email and we would ABSOLUTELY want them auto-learned as ham, > NOT the other way around...
One of the problems is that there's no way of telling Bayes *why* you've whitelisted these messages. It might be because you get the occasional false positive that you want to avoid (but all the rest come under your threshold). You probably would want these autolearned as ham. Or it might be because the messages are from a mailing list like this one, where the messages may well contain extracts from spam. In this case you positively *don't* want to autolearn them as ham, because it'll adversely affect the Bayes database's training. You could work around the problem by creating your own rules to identify these messages, and give them a negative score. These *will* cause Bayes to pick the messages up, as long as it takes them below the autolearn-as-ham threshold. 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 ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
