> -----Original Message----- > From: qqqq [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 10:27 > To: Bowie Bailey; users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Re: Latest sa-stats from last week > > | > Holy spoo! Bayes can do MUCH better than that! > | > {O.O} > | > | I'm sure it can, but I've got per-user Bayes and most of my users > | don't bother to train it. > | > > I'm in a similar situation as Bowie. I had to turn of Bayes > as mail that was obviously spam was getting a Bayes_0 pulling > the # back down under the threshold. >
so why not just score BAYES_00, BAYES_20, etc all at at 0... and keep BAYES_99, BAYES_95, etc scoring what they score. if you trust its spam accuracy but not its ham accuracy, that would be the logical way to go i would say? d
