Hi Matt, I'm interested in how your setup compares to mine. I also find Bayes very useful, but I haven't gotten it to work as well as what you've described.
> > Interesting.. For me, BAYES_99 is right between SURBL and > URIBL in terms of > hits. (And has 98.91% of URIBL's total hits) I find it completely > indispensable. > Are you using a single site-wide database, or is this a per-user setup? > I rarely train manually, except at initial setup where I feed > it a good > base learning. (the autolearner can sometimes go awry if you > don't train > some mail manually before letting it go.) > The trouble I had with the autolearner was that some spammers would send innocuous mail through to raise their scores until Bayes decided they were ok, then start spamming. That was a couple of versions back, does that sort of thing no longer work? > On a day to day basis I mostly feed automatically with a cronjob that > collects mail via spamtraps and hamtraps. I have that coupled with > autolearning that's set a bit differently than the defaults. (IMNSHO, > having a ham learning threshold that's positive is suicide, > but I also have > a large number of small negative-score rules so I can keep my > threshold at > -0.01 and actually autolearn some ham). > I'd love to make my Bayesian database more effective, is there a doc somewhere that describes how you tuned it to your environment?
