Arthur Kerpician wrote on Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:25:42 +0300: > . So from time to time I should > feed ham manually to sa-learn, until it reaches the spam level again. Is > this correct? If it is, I think it's rather time-consuming to always > check the trained ham/spam and level them.
There is no reason to this and nobody told you to do so :-) Whereever you read this you either misunderstood it or it was wrong. You can manually train ham *and* spam if you like. It's good to train all the stuff that got missed or wasn't autolearned. But you have to be sure it's learned for the "right side". > > I was thinking to increase bayes_auto_learn_threshold_spam to a higher > number, so less spam is auto-learned. Is this ok? This would be nonsense. In theory you want to learn *all* ham and *all* spam. As you obviously can't do this you learn *as much as possible*, within the constraints of your operation. Kai -- Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
