On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 17:36:19 +0200 Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > >On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 19:49:04 +0200 > >Daniele Duca wrote: > >> In my current SA setup I use bayes_auto_learn along with some > >> custom poison pills (autolearn_force on some rules) , and I'm > >> currently wondering if over training SA's bayes could lead to the > >> same "prejudice" problem as CRM114. > >> > >> I'm thinking that maybe it would be better to use > >> "bayes_auto_learn_on_error 1" > > On 26.07.18 15:48, RW wrote: > >On a busy server using auto-learning it's probably a good idea to set > >this just to increase the token retention, and reduce writes into the > >database. > > well, I have a bit different experience.
I didn't say auto-training itself, is a good idea. > There are spams hitting > negative scoring rules e.g. MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_RP_*, > RCVD_IN_IADB_* and they are constantly trained as ham. You should be able to work around that by adding noautolearn to the tflags. > I would like to prevent re-training when bayes disagrees with score > soming from other rules. I don't know what you mean by 'prevent re-training', but auto-learning is not supposed to happen if Bayes generates 1 point or more in the opposite direction. > I quite wonder why "learn" tflag causes score being ignored. > Only the "noautolearn" flag should be used for this so at least > BAYES_99 and BAYES_00 could be takein into account when learning. It's to prevent mistraining from running away in a vicious circle.
