Dear members,
User repeatedly sends us spam messages to train SA.
Traning - at the moment - requires manual intervention: administrator verifies
if it's really spam then issues sa-learn.
Then the user thinks the process is done, and the next time when the same email
arrives, it will
Reindl Harald [mailto:h.rei...@thelounge.net] wrote:
> > However, that doesn't happen.
> > 0.000 0 338770 0 non-token data: nspam
> > 0.000 01460807 0 non-token data: nham
> what do you expect when you train 4 times more ham than spam?
> frankly you
Reindl Harald [mailto:h.rei...@thelounge.net] wrote:
>> This is a mail gateway for multiple companies. I'm not supposed to read
>> e-mails on that, or picking mails that can be used for learning ham
>
> how did you then manage 1.4 Mio ham-samples in your biased corpus
Looks like in this
Reindl Harald [mailto:h.rei...@thelounge.net] wrote:
>> I think I have no control over what is learnt automatically.
> surely, don't do autolearning at all
This is a mail gateway for multiple companies. I'm not supposed to read e-mails
on that, or picking mails that can be used for learning ham.
Hello,
David Jones [mailto:djo...@ena.com] wrote:
> There should be many more rule hits than just these 3. It looks like
> network tests aren't happening.
> Can you post the original email to pastebin.com with minimal redacting
> so the rest of us can run it through our SA to see how it
Hello,
David Jones [mailto:djo...@ena.com] wrote:
> With non-English email flow, it's more challenging. If no RBLs hit, then you
> really must train your Bayes properly which requires some way to accurately
> determine the ham and spam. You must keep a copy of the
ham and spam corpi and be
