>I have autolearned disabled in my SpamAssassin config. > >I get certain e-mail accounts that are old and JUST GET SPAM >(no question >about it). I set up a script that takes e-mails from these >accounts and feds >them in to sa-learn as SPAM. > >I have no HAM's right now, however I have plans to add at >least a couple >hundred to bayes (that is the bare minimum, I believe). > >My question is: Is there anything wrong with doing this? I've seen some >posts about ratio's. I figured the more SPAM you feed it, the >smarter it >will get. Keep in mind I am not trying to use bayes scoring >right now, but I >thought this setup was better instead of using auto-learn to >try to guess >which were spam (they are ALL spam!)
When taking a survey on abstinence, is it good to only go and ask college kids? :) A proper Bayes Diet consists of 50% ham and %50 spam. This would be the optimum. Drastic differences can skew the results. Remember Bayes doesn't just look for spam, it also looks for ham just as much. And YES, Ninja Chris has just answered a Bayes question. I know, I know, don't panic! ;) --Chris (I don't usually answer Bayes questions because I don't think Bayes is a good solution.)
