> On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:10:52 +0200 Axb <axb.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >> and to avoid further discussions of what header may pollute bayes or >> not, I've removed all header entries which are not directly related >> to AV/filter products.
On 10/14/2014 07:17 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
> I'm not sure I agree with being too clever about Bayes. Surely by its
> very nature, the Bayes algorithm will itself indicate which tokens
> are relevant and which are not? Isn't that the whole point of Bayes?
>
> I think being to clever about massaging the data that gets fed to
> Bayes may be counter-productive. For sure, *some* massaging is in order;
> a token should be a semantic unit, so something like "www.example.com"
> should probably be one token rather than three, but beyond that I wonder
> if it's good or not to massage the data?
The purpose of bayes_ignore_header is twofold:
1. Prevent inheriting other systems' false positives (ensure better
independence)
2. Prevent relying upon headers that won't exist at delivery time (e.g.
added by the mailbox server)
This is why it's so important to ignore other spam engines, which
basically fit into both of those categories.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
