qqqq wrote: > I have since taken bayes out as I get WAY better results without it.
If it doesn't work for you, don't use it. The rules and network tests work pretty well. Especially if you add some SARE rules into the mix. However... > The reason this happens to me is that I get to many spam mailings > that poison the db and I end up with allot of spam that shows up as a > Bayes_00. That sounds like you have a poorly trained db. Did you do manual training or leave it up to the automatic training? There is really no such thing as bayes poison. There are only words that appear frequently in spam and words that don't appear frequently in spam. If the spammers drop a bunch of random garbage into their spam, that's just more stuff for bayes to analyze. Most likely, it will be stuff that you wouldn't normally see in your ham mails anyway. > I use all the Network tests but I get allot of spam that > has not been added yet. Network tests are good for spam runs that have been around for awhile. For newer spams, bayes and some of the more generic rules are where you will get most of your hits. -- Bowie
