Am 14.10.2014 um 23:37 schrieb Axb:
On 10/14/2014 11:08 PM, Adam Katz wrote: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.I'd love to have the option (switch) to use Bayes on msg bodies ONLY, though I doubt anybody would be a taker for such a project. (I'd even be willing to "$pon$or" such an addition to SA)
or someting like the opposit as now: bayes_include_header received bayes_include_header subject bayes_include_header x-mailer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
