On Thu, 25 Sep 2014, Deeztek Support wrote:
On 9/25/2014 9:26 AM, Deeztek Support wrote:
On 9/25/2014 6:31 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 24.09.14 14:03, Deeztek Support wrote:
> > score BAYES_00 0.000
>
> why 0? current is -1.5 without and -1.9 with network checks...
Do you mean that the default is supposed to be -1.5 without networks
tests and -1.9 with network tests?
I went ahead and set BAYES_00 to -1.9 and I just received a spam message with
these headers:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.204 tagged_above=-999 required=0.6
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DCC_CHECK=1.1, FROM_STARTS_WITH_NUMS=0.738,
RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.735, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URI_OPTOUT_3LD=1]
autolearn=disabled
From looking at it, it looks like the BAYES_00 took away -1.9 which made the
difference of whether or not it got tagged as spam or not. I don't think -1.9
is the correct setting here. Any thoughts?
Having a negative score for BAYES_00 is the standard.
If BAYES_00 hits on a spam, that indicates training issues.
Since you're reporting problems with autolearn, that's not at all
surprising. Your bayes database is probably polluted.
You are probably going to have to wipe and retrain your bayes database
from scratch using known-good (i.e. hand classified) corpora. I also
suggest turning off autolearn.
You *did* keep your initial Bayes training corpora, right?
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The yardstick you should use when considering whether to support a
given piece of legislation is "what if my worst enemy is chosen to
administer this law?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
847 days since the first successful private support mission to ISS (SpaceX)
