On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 01:39 +0100, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote on Wed, 04 Mar 2009 00:00:25 +0100:
>
> > Works really well for me.
While that indeed is true, it's kind of out-of-context. :) It probably
should be read in connection with my specific learning flavor, explained
in my long-ish post.
> Indeed, very well for us. Not just for one domain. In my opinion site-wide
> Bayes is the only one that makes sense unless your *single* users really
> send and receive *lots* of mail. The ordinary domain/user just doesn't get
> enough mail for a nicely working bayes db.
>
> We auto-learn all spam with scores 8 or higher. Users usually do not
> learn. The score for autolearning spam has been lowered to -2 to avoid
> learning spam that slips thru as ham.
That's bayes_auto_learn_threshold_spam and nonspam respectively, I
guess? Keep in mind that threshold is not the actual score, so you
aren't learning all spam with a score of 8+ then.
Kai, given a nonspam threshold of -2, how exactly do you (manually)
learn ham? That would be interesting. And what's the ham/spam ratio?
On a related note, IIRC the ham threshold once was lowered to -1, and
subsequently raised back to a positive zero due to complaints.
Nice to read good news and "works for me" comments even site-wide.
Generally, only those who got problems vent it. ;)
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
