On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 22:02:59 +0100 Karsten Bräckelmann <guent...@rudersport.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 12:16 -0800, John Hardin wrote: > > On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, RW wrote: > > > > > I was wondering if it's possible to control autolearning based > > > on rules. > > No. And even tweaking the various thresholds will not help, since > auto-learning is based on the score *without* Bayes, etc. > > > > I'm scoring DSPAM into Spamassassin, and since DSPAM autolearns > > By that you mean... Using the DSPAM plugin for SA? And the rule you > want to base auto-learning upon is the DSPAM plugin one? No, is there any point? I just pass it though dspam and then score like this: header DS_HAM X-DSPAM-Result =~ /^(Innocent|Whitelisted)/ header DS_SPAM X-DSPAM-Result =~ /^Spam/ meta DS_HAM_FULL DS_HAM && (BAYES_00 || BAYES_05) score DS_HAM -2.5 score DS_SPAM 21.0 score DS_HAM_FULL -15.0 score BAYES_00 -2.5 score BAYES_05 -1.5 I combine this with some sieve rules that file into Junk and Junk.high folders at the scores 5 and 30. Junk.high is effectively discarded. I check the Junk folder and move everything to the training folders, along with any spam that gets through. Additionally a sieve rule autofiles anything over 30 that dspam didn't get into the learn-spam folder. That means that every single mail misclassified by dspam's autolearning will get reclassified, but it doesn't imply the same for Bayes unless Bayes autolearns in line with dspam. However, thinking about it a bit more, I think that the only real problem is that ham that scores between 0.1 and 5.0 wont be learned as ham, and I can fix that by moving the autolearn threshold to up to 4.9. BTW am I correct in assumimg that my dspam header rules in /usr/local/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf will contribute to autolearning.
