>From my small experience... I score BAYES_999 with 2.00, it was suggested to me months ago.
But nowadays I'd be more careful and do some more testing: I'd check which messages have only BAYES_99 and which have BAYES_999, If you are absolutely certain that BYES_999 are only and definitively spam, go with 2 or more; if you have several false positives, keep the score low. I learnt the hard way that BAYES depends on the corpus used to grow the database. On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 7:39 PM joe a <joea-li...@j4computers.com> wrote: > On 2/28/2023 12:05 PM, Jeff Mincy wrote: > > > From: joe a <joea-li...@j4computers.com> > > > Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2023 11:37:34 -0500 > > > > > > Curious as to why these scores, apparently "stock" are what they are. > > > I'd expect BAYES_999 BODY to count more than BAYES_99 BODY. > > > > > > Noted in a header this morning: > > > > > > * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99 to 100% > > > * [score: 1.0000] > > > * 0.2 BAYES_999 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99.9 to 100% > > > * [score: 1.0000] > > > > > > Was this discussed recently? I added a local score to mollify my > sense > > > of propriety. > > > > Those two rules overlap. A message with bayes >= 99.9% hits both > > rules. BAYES_99 ends at 1.00 not .999. > > -jeff > > > > I get that they overlap. I guess my thinker gets in a knot wondering > why there is so little weight given to the more certain determination. > > In my narrow view, anything that is 99.9% certain is probably worth a 5 > on it's own. Or, at least should when, summed with BAYES_99, equal 5. > As that is what the default "SPAM flag" is. > > Appears more experienced or thoughtful persons think otherwise. > > Yes, it did snow heavily overnight. Yes, I am looking for excuses not > to visit that issue. >
