http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5497
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-07 17:56 ------- Re comment #40: > I agree the -1 is unrealistically low. I had to force it back to 0.1 too. The subject of people having problems with Bayes because it learns too much spam as ham has been around for years, and the change of the threshold was an attempt to fix this. However, it is my (perhaps faulty) recollection that most people that had to change the threshold to avoid learning spam as ham changed the threshold to - 0.1 rather than -1. It might be interesting to see if threshold values of 0 or -0.1 would still work for some of the people that are having problems with the -1 value. (Alternately stated: I think the concept of lowering the threashold was probably reasonable. It is just the value picked for the lowered threshold that seems probably unreasonable. A value closer to 0 or slightly negative might solve the problems for the people with spam-as-ham problems while not hurting people that were fine with the old threshold.) ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
