I'm bumped my BAYES_90 and 99 up to the point where they alone will
cause the email to be regarded as spam. I've bumped BAYES_80 up to
almost the threshold so that it would only take one or two additional
rules to put it over.
Jim Savoy wrote:
Justin writes:
Note that using chi-squared combining, most "certain" results from
bayes will come out at BAYES_00 and BAYES_99 -- so if you like,
just set those scores and leave the "noise" in the middle alone.
...and I could always just upgrade my SpamAssassin to the latest
version (I'm still running
SA 2.55), which I will do in a few weeks btw.
The reason I bring this whole Bayes thing up is because I have
manually fed many
thousands of spam and ham into the db, and it has auto-learned from
many hundreds
of thousands of messages since then. It is doing a great job. Hardly
any false-positives
at all this past year.
However, when I check out some of the stuff that is not getting marked
as spam, I see
there aren't too many rules hit, so the scores are fairly low (maybe
4.5 or 5.0 or so).
But in these messages BAYES_90 or BAYES_80 are often hit. If I could
make these
two scores higher, that would put these over the top. I just wanted to
know if others
have done this, or should I not be messing with these very
well-thought out
algorithms?
- jim -
