Hello Bob Thanks for your response.
One more questions if I may: Do you reckon my theory on autolearning lots of ham causing lots of spam to start getting thru sounds feasible (as bizarre as it sounds while I read it back to myself)? Thanks Deon. On Wed, 2004-03-17 at 04:39, Robert Menschel wrote: > Hello Deon, > > Tuesday, March 16, 2004, 4:26:48 AM, you wrote: > > DdV> Is it simply a matter of playing around with the autolearn > DdV> thresholds until I find a good balance? > > Or better: playing around with the autolearn thresholds until you find > the ones that work for you (balance not necessary). > > DdV> I would dearly like to utilise autolearning as I am running SA in a web > DdV> hosting environment and so have numerous servers hosting even more > DdV> numerous domains all talking to the same server via spamc/spamd and > DdV> hence utilising the same bayesian database. If I can get autolearning > DdV> working then this seems to be the right way forward for me. > > I use a non-spam threshold of -2 and a spam threshold of 20. > > The non-spam of -2 ensures that spam which sneaks by hitting no rules > does not get wrongly learned as ham. I'm very happy with that setting. Of > course, it requires a number of negative-scoring rules in your local > configuration to work. > > The spam threshold of +20 is probably a bit high. It catches a goodly > amount of spam, but could catch more if I lowered it. Since I manually > feed ALL spam and ham into sa-learn, auto-learned or not, refining that > latter threshold hasn't been a priority for me. > > Bob Menschel > > > >
