On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 01:52:33 -0700, "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From: "Beast" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> jdow wrote:
>>> From: "Beast" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> From some (spam) mail which not caught by SA, it seems that bayes is
>>>> not applied to this mail.
>>>>
>>>> X-Spam-Report:
>>>> * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
>>>> * 1.7 SARE_SPEC_ROLEX Rolex watch spam
>>>> X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.7 required=5.2
>>>> tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SARE_SPEC_ROLEX
>>>> autolearn=no version=3.1.4
>>>>
>>>> Is bayes check is not run for every mail?
>>>
>>> It is not run if you have not yet learned from at least 200 each of
>>> spam and ham messages. You do not learn form all messages because the
>>> scores are "indicative" rather than "certain" with regards to estimating
>>> ham or spam properties. If you collect a random bunch of 200 or more
>>> ham messages and 200 or more known spam messages and manually train
>>> with them via sa-learn you can get Bayes working sooner.
>>
>> It actually has enough corpus learned. I was running this for more than
>> a year with manual tarined (daily tarined by human). Bayes was working
>> for most mail but not for all mails.
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# spamassassin --lint -D 2>&1 | grep 'corpus size'
>> [12081] dbg: bayes: corpus size: nspam = 34035, nham = 7399
>>
>> I will turn on auto leaarn mostly because I need to feed more HAM to SA
>> (so far I only feed ham for any false positive which is very low daily
>> and i think that is not good enough for SA)
>
>If it is well trained then Bayes should be hitting. It may be that
>SA cannot get to the Bayes database due to privileges.
>
>(I manually train here. I distrust automatic training.)
>
>{^_^}
I agree with not autotraining, imo it's a damned good way to get your
bayes poisoned. With beast's error I got the impression only _some_
mails were being missed which would imply either a file lock issue or
not enough child processes?
Nigel
