Hello Deon, Thursday, March 18, 2004, 2:27:01 AM, you wrote:
DdV> Hello Bob DdV> Thanks for your response. DdV> One more questions if I may: DdV> Do you reckon my theory on autolearning lots of ham causing lots of spam DdV> to start getting thru sounds feasible (as bizarre as it sounds while I DdV> read it back to myself)? Personally, no. I suspect what happened instead is that spam sneaks through autolearn as ham, since spammers continually try to find ways past everyone's filters. If you don't catch and correct those, then eventually there may be enough spam snuck through to allow other spam through with low Bayes scores. Bob Menschel DdV> Thanks DdV> Deon. DdV> 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
