On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 16:21:48 +0200
Axb wrote:
On 09/12/2014 03:48 PM, RW wrote:
There's a qualitative difference between a threshold of 0.1 and
-1.0. At 0.1 ham can be learned just by not hitting any spam tests,
Which means that FNs get easily learnt as ham, which is what we're
trying
On 09/15/2014 03:10 PM, RW wrote:
You're assuming that broad and balanced learning with a little
miss-training is necessarily worse than any kind of learning without
miss-training.
Yes and no.
Seems ppl are not worrying about missing learnt ham but an increase in
the very, VERY low scored
On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 16:11:33 +0200
Axb wrote:
On 09/10/2014 11:19 PM, RW wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 20:57:35 +0200
Axb wrote:
In practice this means that, without custom rules, ham can
only be autolearned if it hits a DNS whitelist rule or
RP_MATCHES_RCVD.
from what I'm
On 09/12/2014 03:48 PM, RW wrote:
There's a qualitative difference between a threshold of 0.1 and -1.0.
At 0.1 ham can be learned just by not hitting any spam tests,
Which means that FNs get easily learnt as ham, which is what we're
trying to avoid.
On 09/10/2014 11:19 PM, RW wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 20:57:35 +0200
Axb wrote:
In practice this means that, without custom rules, ham can only be
autolearned if it hits a DNS whitelist rule or RP_MATCHES_RCVD.
from what I'm seeing is that it takes lower scored ham to autolearn
ham. I
On 9/10/2014 9:47 AM, Axb wrote:
for quite a while I've been playing with autolearn settings
SA's default is:
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam0.1
this *can* cause low scored spam to be learnt as ham.
For several months I've been using
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam -1.0
and so far
On 09/10/2014 04:05 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 9/10/2014 9:47 AM, Axb wrote:
for quite a while I've been playing with autolearn settings
SA's default is:
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam0.1
this *can* cause low scored spam to be learnt as ham.
For several months I've been using
Hi,
For several months I've been using
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam -1.0
and so far no more false negatives have been learnt as ham which is
was hoping for.
If you're using autolearn, you may want to play with that threshold..
Based on your expertise with Bayes, should we change the
On 09/10/2014 04:29 PM, Alex Regan wrote:
Hi,
For several months I've been using
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam -1.0
and so far no more false negatives have been learnt as ham which is
was hoping for.
If you're using autolearn, you may want to play with that threshold..
Based on your
On Sep 10, 2014, at 7:47 AM, Axb axb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
For several months I've been using
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam -1.0
Any reason you chose -1.0 rather than something a bit closer to 0, like -0.5 or
-0.2? Most of my low-scoring spam is pretty close to 0, so I'm just
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 15:47:48 +0200
Axb wrote:
for quite a while I've been playing with autolearn settings
SA's default is:
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam0.1
this *can* cause low scored spam to be learnt as ham.
For several months I've been using
Hi,
For several months I've been using
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam -1.0
Any reason you chose -1.0 rather than something a bit closer to 0,
like -0.5 or -0.2? Most of my low-scoring spam is pretty close to 0,
so I'm just wondering.
I know I made the decision years ago to lower it to
Hi,
SA's default is:
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam0.1
this *can* cause low scored spam to be learnt as ham.
For several months I've been using
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam -1.0
and so far no more false negatives have been learnt as ham which is
was hoping for.
If you're using
On 09/10/2014 08:23 PM, RW wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 15:47:48 +0200
Axb wrote:
for quite a while I've been playing with autolearn settings
SA's default is:
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam0.1
this *can* cause low scored spam to be learnt as ham.
For several months I've been using
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 20:57:35 +0200
Axb wrote:
In practice this means that, without custom rules, ham can only be
autolearned if it hits a DNS whitelist rule or RP_MATCHES_RCVD.
from what I'm seeing is that it takes lower scored ham to autolearn
ham. I don't use DNS whitelists and
On 05/12/07 Abba wrote:
Is anyone using numbers higher than 1 ?
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam 3.0
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_spam 6.0
maciek
--
|_|0|_| Maciej Friedel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|_|_|0| http://wwv.pl - usługi hostingowe
|0|0|0| http://eprogram.pl - projektowanie
On Sat, 12 May 2007, Maciej Friedel wrote:
On 05/12/07 Abba wrote:
Is anyone using numbers higher than 1 ?
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_nonspam 3.0
bayes_auto_learn_threshold_spam 6.0
How are results of those settings? I'm just curious as I have a hard time
using autolearn
Adam Katz wrote:
Is there a way to set the bayes auto-learn thresholds to ignore the score
modifications from bayes and whitelists? It seems silly to teach SA that
a spam whose only flag was BAYES_20 is ham, or that spam from a
whitelisted friend's virus-infected computer is ham.
(Maybe this
Chris Purves wrote:
Running grep noautolearn /usr/share/spamassassin/* returns the list of
tests with noautolearn set.
...
No Bayes in this list. If your bayes database is well trained, then I
don't see why it shouldn't be used to determine and train more spam or ham.
It doesn't need to be
19 matches
Mail list logo
