----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "John Fleming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 10:41 PM Subject: Re: another auto_learn
> At 06:32 PM 8/27/2004 -0500, John Fleming wrote: > >auto_learn is set to 1 and the emails in question far exceed the set > >threshholds. > > > >Any thoughts about why auto_learn might appear not to be working other than > >a message already having been learned? Thanks - John > > Reasons not to learn, other than threshold and already learned: > > 1) lock contention... bayes autolearn is an opportunistic process, > if it can't get a R/W lock on the database, autolearning is skipped. (the > alternative is to logjam the mail queue) > > 2) the score calculations are done with bayes disabled, including > scoreset shift. This can make a HUGE difference. Some rules score high in > set 3, but not in set 0 or 1. > > 3) must have 3.0 worth of header, and 3.0 worth of body points, > regardless of threshold. Thus a message can match 100 points of body rules, > but not autolearn if it only matches 1.2 worth of header rules. > > 4) no contradictions rule - don't autolearn as spam anything that > would otherwise be very low in bayes score. Same for ham and high bayes > scores. (not 100% working for all cases in all SA versions, but is a > general design rule) > Thanks for the nice summary, Matt. In 24 hrs, I've not autolearned anything. Normally my server would autolearn 1500 or so ham and spam in a fairly short time. That would be very unusual for my server, and seems unlikely to result from any of the above. I've changed distros from Debian unstable to Debian testing, but my local.cf file was saved and restored, so the settings are the same for threshhold, auto_learn etc. I got Bayes going by manually feeding it with 200+ ham and spam, and the Bayes is working fine. Can't see the auto_learn problem. - John
