http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5497
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-06 22:37 ------- > Can you define for me what you mean by > "should be" autolearned as ham? I think I'm guilty of conflating your comments with Rob Janssen's comments. If the only thing that is the matter with your setup is that an autolearn threshold for ham of -1.0 is too low to ever trigger, then all you need to do is to set it up to a number that does work for you. Whether you determine that number from past experience with version 3.1 and make it 0.1, or you actually look at the range of scores in your ham and pick a number that will capture most of the true ham with almost no false hits, either way will be better than what you have now. But if, like Rob, you find that after running sa-update even a ham autolearn threshold of 0.1 never learns, then we need to find out why _that_ happens, and that's what the test of spamassassin -t -D would be for. So for that test I would want to see the results for something that should be learned as ham with the higher threshold of 0.1 but is not. I guess your next steps are simple. Change the threshold in your local.cf to 0.1, clear your Bayes database, and see if you start autolearning any ham. If it works, you are done with this problem. If, like Rob, you don't start autolearning ham, then run spamassassin -t D on some ham that you are pretty sure should have been autolearned and we'll try to figure out why. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
