----- Original Message ----- From: "Theo Van Dinter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 04:32:03PM +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote: > > change in how it works now? I have the feeling that it (3.0 RC1 and > RC2) > > shows less "99" than with 2.63, but that's only a feeling from a few > days > > of a test run. But still the BAYES_99 is quite accurate when it shows > up. > > I know I can change that score, but I'm curious why it is so low now. > > You can read the wiki for why scores get generated the way they do. > As for BAYES_00 and BAYES_99, they're by far my most hit rules for > ham/spam respectively: > > 1 BAYES_00 6953 93.35% > 1 BAYES_99 58233 87.46% > > I don't have stats for 2.6x, but there's nothing wrong with those > percentages IMO. Theo, I am most interested in Kai's question about auto-learning: ===== "I see that the header and body requirement of three score points each leads to many messages with high scores not getting autolearned. The reason is that URIDNSBL isn't counted in (isn't that a body hit?) and any custom rules (my own, SARE etc.)" ===== Is this correct, that custom rule scores and URIDNSBL scores are ignored by bayes auto-learning? If so, what's the rational behind this? Is this true for both SA 2.6x and SA 3.0? Bill
