Great, just wanted to be sure. Thanks! Mark
> -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 9:38 AM > To: Mark Squire; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Auto-learn SA after having trained it > > > At 10:19 AM 1/23/2004, Mark Squire wrote: > >Hi all, > >I have been training SA manually for a couple of weeks now. > I estimate > >a good 2000 emails for both Spam and Ham have been learned by it. > >Coupla questions though . . . I want to put it into auto-learn mode > >because I have only trained it on a few of our employees emails, and > >not people from the whole company. I think that SA needs to > "get out > >more" and learn from a broader range of emails (if that > makes sense). > >I wanted to be sure that it is okay to put it into auto-learn mode, > >even after I have been manually teaching it for a while. > What do you > >good folks think? > > Auto-learning is not mutually exclusive with manual training. > In fact, if > you are using auto learning, you SHOULD use manual training as well. > > Auto learning alone does NOT work, and will over time result > in a pretty > skewed bayes database. It needs some manual training as well. > > However, autolearning is quite useful, it's just not good > enough to be used > without ever training manually > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
