Hello Tony, Friday, June 13, 2003, 4:45:41 PM, you wrote:
TE> To get a reasonable base, it's been my understanding that you teach TE> Bayes what is spam and what isn't. ... Agreed. TE> You don't start contradicting what you've taught it by teaching it TE> low scoring spam until after you've reached your minimum bias of 200. How is teaching Bayes that this email with a low SA score is actually spam "contradicting" what we've taught it? I see this as teaching Bayes that there is spam which SA doesn't yet have adequate rules for, and IMO, from my experience, Bayes is a lot more flexible in handling these than SA is. (I don't have the ability to create new SA rules because of my end-user status. I can change scores, but that has limited application. I can feed all of my spam into Bayes, and Bayes works wonders at recognizing spam that SA can't.) TE> You'll confuse the whole Bayes database if you do anything different. TE> Why in goodness name put a minimum score of 5 in the first place, if TE> you're going to contradict yourself? Bayes doesn't care about the score, and Bayes can't IMO be confused by seeing ham or spam as long as it's properly identified. The reason for limiting autolearn based on score is to avoid sending wrongly identified spam/ham into Bayes. But as long as **I** know which is which, I can teach Bayes which is which, and Bayes will learn properly, without confusion. TE> It's not me that made up the above, it's in the documentation and the TE> list archives and what I kept to myself when I first started teaching TE> Bayes. Likewise, this is my understanding from the documentation, the list, and my own experience. Bob Menschel ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: eBay Great deals on office technology -- on eBay now! Click here: http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/711-11697-6916-5 _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
