> > I'd say that manual training of spam and ham in such group is needed > > in such cases.
On 16.05.11 14:45, Benny Pedersen wrote: > manuel training is sign of to much whitelistning with default score of > -100, most ham here does not even need it, so bayes is here is more passive > on this here, and this makes more sure that ham that is ham is autolearned > as ham, still have not needed to help bayes here to make the right scores, > but i am avare of this as scores is not always best with -100, eg use > def_whitelist_* if whitelist_from_* is to much I have small problems to understand you, again. Can you please split into sentences? > when maillist groubs get in grey of ham spam then manuel training can be > one way of make it, but olso its possible to make more rules to catch spam, > its just a matter of prefer :) Imho, manual training of ham/spam is much better than manual whitelisting and blacklisting. It's not always possible to manually make rules or whitelists to correctly sort out spam, it's much more often possible to train properly. -- 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. Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
