Thanks a LOT to all who posted back (what a supportive community! This was my first post) especially to Kris.
On Friday 10 December 2004 18:21, Kris Deugau wrote: > Yassen Damyanov wrote: > > > > debug: running meta tests; score so far=5.53 > > debug: auto-learn? ham=0.2, spam=8, body-hits=4.166, head-hits=1.364 > ^^^^^^^ > This isn't exactly obvious, but this may be part of your problem. I've > had trouble in the past with Bayes learning very low-scoring spam as ham > - so I lowered the autolearn-as-ham threshold to -0.1. I examined the bayesian manual learning and it does seem perfect. I came to a conclusion that some real spams got scored very low and poisoned the Bayes db, so it started to make mistakes and thus poisoned itself even more, then made worse mistakes, ... etc. I switched off the auto_learning (not needed IMHO when we have regular manual learning sessions) and then deleted the old database and rerun the manual learning script. Expecting it all to be better now. Thanks again! BTW, how to interpret things like "tests=BAYES_56" or "tests=BAYES_00" in the X-Spam-Status header? (Sorry for my ignorance.) Yassen -- Yassen Damyanov phone: +359-32-968-903 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ# : 169382108 web : www.troyer-is.com
