On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 19:12 -0500, Dennis B. Hopp wrote:
> Quoting RW <rwmailli...@googlemail.com>:
>
> > Bear in mind that autolearning uses it's own version of the score that
> > excludes whitelisting and Bayes, which means that very little ham will
> > reach the -1 threshold unless you've added your own site-specific rules
> > for identifying it.
>
> Yeah I knew that. I have a few negative scoring rules but not many
> (outside of what might be in the misc rules sets I have). What is a
> good threshold for ham then?
The default of 0.1. It's a default for a reason.
But that *really* is not your problem. Your problem is with learning
spam, not learning even more ham. Just as you mentioned in your original
report. See my previous response for a solution. You want to learn more
spam.
--
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; }}}
