Hello Matt, Tuesday, November 23, 2004, 7:32:05 PM, you wrote:
MK> At 09:51 PM 11/23/2004, Robert Menschel wrote: >>R> 70_sare_bayes_poison_nxm.cf >>I personally don't use this -- I personally verify 75%+ of all mail >>that goes through SA's analysis on three domains, and I feed 100% of >>that mail (excepting lists like this) into SA-Learn. IMO there is no >>bayes poison, only bayes fodder. I expect the rule set would be useful >>for those with less comprehensive training. Also, since you don't >>mention Bayes above, if you /don't/ run Bayes, this rules file can be >>very useful. MK> I agree totally on the concept of poison in terms of training. MK> There is no bayes poison, only fodder. MK> However, I would also agree that detecting lame attempts to poison MK> bayes is a good spam sign. With SA 3.0's weak bayes scores in set3 MK> (1.886 for BAYES_99), this can help even a system with a well MK> trained bayes DB. Which brings up another point which has been mentioned on the list before -- the BAYES_99 score is too low for well-trained systems. I have never seen a BAYES_99 hit on any non-spam. I run with BAYES_99 at my spam threshold (9), and BAYES_95 at 75% of that threshold. Either it hasn't happened yet, or it has happened only on non-spam where my negative-scoring rules brought the scores down enough to be treated as ham. The distributed score is probably good for a system which is not manually trained, or poorly trained, or mistrained. However, when admins take the care to train their Bayes system properly, IMO that score can and should be raised. There are other score adjustments that probably should be documented and shared within the SA community. I once posted most of my score mods on the exit0.us wiki. Should we maybe develop a section of the SA wiki dedicated to score mods and other mods specific to rules? Bob Menschel
