> > On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:56:35 -0400 > > Matt Kettler <mkettler...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > Please be aware the AWL is NOT whitelist, or a blacklist, and the > > > scores don't really quite work the way they look. The AWL is > > > essentially an averager, and as such, it's sometimes going to assign > > > negative scores to spam sometimes.
> > And it works from its own version of the score that ignores > > whitelisting and bayes scores. So if learning a spam leads to the next > > spam from the same address getting a higher bayes score, that benefit > > isn't washed-out by AWL. On 04.07.09 22:42, RW wrote: > I take that back, I thought the the BAYES_XX rules were ignored by AWL, > but they aren't. > > Personally I think BAYES should be ignored by AWL, emails from the same > "from address" and ip address will have a lot of tokens in common. They > should train quickly, and there shouldn't be any need to "damp-out" > that learning. I don't think so. Teaching BAYES is a good way to hint AWL which way should it push scores. By ignoring bayes, you could move much spam the ham-way since much of spam isn't catched by other scores than BAYES, and vice versa. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. WinError #99999: Out of error messages.
