jdow wrote: > From: "Bowie Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Michael Monnerie wrote: > > > On Dienstag, 9. Mai 2006 16:18 Bowie Bailey wrote: > > > > I've got per-user Bayes and most of my users > > > > don't bother to train it. > > > > > > Another reason for site-wide bayes, I'd say. > > > > I've considered that, but it won't work in our setup. This box > > scans our internal email as well as all of our customer's email. > > Since we are in an entirely different line of business from our > > customers, what we consider to be ham and spam will be quite > > different from theirs. If I could train it on both sets, it might > > work, but I don't have access to any of their emails for training. > > > > Also, I really prefer a per-user bayes for our internal email > > since there are various accounts that get a specific type of ham > > and work very well with Bayes. > > Importune on them to feed you as large a collection of ham and spam > as they can, once. Then turn on autolearn, cross your fingers, and > put on your flack jacket.
What flack jacket? I have Bayes turned on now and I never did any manual training on most of the accounts. I just turned it on and let autolearn (with the default settings) do it's thing. So far, I have received very few complaints. But then again, I think less than half of my users are even taking advantage of the spam markup. Since I don't do any blocking or sorting on the server, it is up to them to use MUA rules to sort or delete the spam once my server has marked it. -- Bowie
