Re: On the subject of training ( ie frequency)...

[Andy Jezierski]

Dr Robert Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 06/29/2005 11:39:48 AM:

[snip]
>
> I have a system where the previous person trained the Bayes stats once
> about 1-2 yrs ago, has used only the "default" rules, and has "auto
> learn" on. Reports are it has been losing its effectiveness slowly over
> this period, hence my question.
>
> I'm trying to determine what one "should" do.
>

Look at the Spam headers on your messages. For those that are non-spam, are you seeing low Bayes scores, Bayes_00, Bayes_05 etc.?  For your spam messages, are you seeing high Bayes scores?  Bayes_99, Bayes_80, etc.?  If so, your bayes training is probably OK. If not, you may want to think about doing some manual training for both ham & spam.

For the spam that does make it through, you may want to classify the different types, and take a look at some of the SARE rules at rulesemporium to see if they would be a fit. Also, what version of SA are you running?  Are you using SURBL? If it 3.0.0 or higher you should be OK, if you're still running 2.6x you may want to upgrade (preferable) or install the SURBL patch.  

Myself, I run with about 25 or so SARE rules sets that are checked for updates about once a week, along with a few others. Greylisting, Razor, Pyzor, DCC, SURBL, and just recently URIBL.  I have very, very little spam that slips through unflagged.

Andy