John Hardin wrote: >Note I said "raw"; by that I meant "before any filtering".
Ah. > Also, I was speaking about manual training, though I could see where >autolearn might lead to the above ratio. I would say that about 99% of our training comes from autolearn. I only feed (with sa-learn) whatever untagged stuff is gathered up by our control group of people and placed in the Public Folders (very little). My original post lamented the fact that the stuff I feed with sa-learn doesn't seem to be getting acknowledged. Bayes does say it learned from the messages, and the nspam count goes up after I'm done, but the tags afterwards remain the same. So it either means that these messages don't have enough discerning content, or that I am not using sa-learn properly. I'll try changing my username to "exim" the next time I run it. Thanks. - jim -
