From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
John Tice wrote:
Greetings,
This is my first post after having lurked some. So, I'm getting these
same "RE: good" spams but they're hitting eight rules and typically
scoring between 30 and 40. I'm really unsophisticated compared to you
guys, and it begs the question––what am I doing wrong? All I use is a
tweaked user_prefs wherein I have gradually raised the scores on
standard rules found in spam that slips through over a period of time.
These particular spams are over the top on bayesian (1.0), have
multiple database hits, forged rcvd_helo and so forth. Bayesian alone
flags them for me. I'm trying to understand the reason you would not
want to have these type of rules set high enough? I must be way over
optimized––what am I not getting?
BAYES_99, by definition, has a 1% false positive rate.
That is what Bayes thinks. I think it is closer to something between
0.5% and 0.1% false positive. I have mine trained down lethally fine
at this point, it appears.
{^_-}
