> ahh yeah hit reply instead of reply-all. > > anyone out there see anything major or minorly wrong with the output below??
For what it's worth, here's my output: [EMAIL PROTECTED] sa-learn --dump magic 0.000 0 2 0 non-token data: bayes db version 0.000 0 88033 0 non-token data: nspam 0.000 0 15592 0 non-token data: nham 0.000 0 1729756 0 non-token data: ntokens 0.000 0 1010964573 0 non-token data: oldest atime 0.000 0 1762110386 0 non-token data: newest atime 0.000 0 1101309901 0 non-token data: last journal sync atime 0.000 0 1101301792 0 non-token data: last expiry atime 0.000 0 0 0 non-token data: last expire atime delta 0.000 0 0 0 non-token data: last expire reduction count I agree with Jim that having your SPAM/HAM numbers match doesn't really matter, as long as you have sufficient amounts of each. I think the "threshold" where my users started to expierence the best filtering accuracy was when I topped 1000 SPAMs and HAMs. But, as Jim said before, your mileage may vary. Tim Gustafson MEI Technology Consulting, Inc [EMAIL PROTECTED] (516) 379-0001 Office (516) 480-1870 Mobile/Emergencies (516) 908-4185 Fax http://www.meitech.com/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
