Daniel Aquino wrote:
Is spam assassin smart enough to not auto-learn (bayesian) spam if the default tests "allready" detect it as spam... ? What I'm wondering is if the other tests have allready deamed it to be spam, then why would you want to increase the size of your bayesian db... Bayesian I believe would be better applied to messages that appear to be slipping past the other tests...
Because you might get a similar message that doesn't trip the same SA tests, and doesn't score 5 points. Maybe the exact wording SA looked for only hits one variation of the message, but other parts are substantially similar from one run to the next. Maybe the first message came from a source that triggers a whole mess of RBLs, but the second one comes from a "clean" source. Maybe the spammer rotates in a new URL with the same sales pitch, and the new URL hasn't made it into any SURBLs yet.
-- Kelson Vibber SpeedGate Communications <www.speed.net>
