On 10/22, JP Kelly wrote: > Should I set the BAYES_99 score high enough to trigger as spam? > I get plenty of spam getting through which does not get caught because > BAYES_99 is the only rule which fires and it is not set to score at or above > the threshold.
You could. Some people only use bayesian filtering, which would be similar. The important question is, how many false positives (non-spams flagged as spams) would that cause? SpamAssassin's automated scoring attempts to achieve 1 false positive in 2,500 non-spams, with a score threshold of 5.0. So if you don't have an absolute minimum of 2,500 representative non-spams to check for having hit BAYES_99, you risk increasing your false positives. But it's your risk to take. Huh, ruleqa doesn't track hits to BAYES_99? -- "Let's just say that if complete and utter chaos was lightning, then he'd be the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armour and shouting 'All gods are bastards'." - The Color of Magic http://www.ChaosReigns.com
