Hi Tony, thanks for the reply.
> [...] > > the "warning" is what I am writing about. I read that > > there should be a more equal ratio of spam/ham but > > how are we to create that ratio when email continues > > to come in a skewered (in in my case a 15:211) ratio? I > > could unsubscribe from lists and then the spam would > > be more equal but obviously that's not practical. > > We recommend not training on all messages, but rather using a mistake- > based training approach. Train any messages that are incorrectly > classified and any messages that are unsure. When I double click on the tray icon I see what's been processed since the last time I used the train button. I don't see a way to select only a certain number or variety of processed emails. I can click the defer options on the good emails and be sure the SPAM was listed as SPAM before clicking on the training button but the next time I check to see what has been processed, all the good emails previously set as defer return listed as HAM & I have to go through all of those which is a lot of redundency on my part. So I don't see a way of bypassing the emails properly classified as HAM, they still get "trained". > > [...] > > there's no global option to list everything > > as defer & then select the Spam & equal #'s of HAM > > for training purposes. > > Yes, there is. These are the "Default training for ham", "Default > training for spam", and "Default training for unsure" options. They > are on the advanced configuration page. Those options appear to be set by default, I don't think I changed them. They do classify as ham, spam or unsure on the "review Messages" page but they don't appear to do anything towards making "Equal #'s of HAM for training purposes". Perhaps you're suggesting I list everything as unsure and then correct that designation after the email has been processed? If that's the suggestion, I just changed the Default training for ham to show as defer. I'll still have to review all previously reviewed emails to be sure to ID all the spam and all the HAM emails will show up ad nauseum as unsure because they never get processed. But if this is the way it's designed to work, I'll give it a go. Again, thank you for the reply. Gary > > =Tony.Meyer > > -- > Please always include the list (spambayes at python.org) in your replies > (reply-all), and please don't send me personal mail about SpamBayes. > http://www.massey.ac.nz/~tameyer/writing/reply_all.html explains this. > > > _______________________________________________ SpamBayes@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/spambayes Check the FAQ before asking: http://spambayes.sf.net/faq.html
