I have since taken bayes out as I get WAY better results without it. The reason this happens to me is that I get to many spam mailings that poison the db and I end up with allot of spam that shows up as a Bayes_00. I use all the Network tests but I get allot of spam that has not been added yet.
QQQQ ----- Original Message ----- From: "jo3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <users@spamassassin.apache.org> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 12:27 PM Subject: rules better than bayes? | Hi, | | This is an observation, please take it in the spirit in which it is | intended, it is not meant to be flame bait. | | After using spamassassin for six solid months, it seems to me that the | bayes process (sa-learn [--spam | --ham]) has only very limited success | in learning about new spam. Regardless of how many spams and hams are | submitted, the effectiveness never goes above the default level which, | in our case here, is somewhere around 2 out of 3 spams correctly | identified. By the same token, after adding the "third party" rule, | airmax.cf, the effectiveness went up to 99 out of 100 spams correctly | identified. | | So far, we have not had a single ham misidentified as spam with over one | million messages examined. | | Throughout the documentation, there seems to be a bias toward the bayes | filter rather than the rule system. Does anyone on the list have some | thoughts which would help to explain my observation as to why a single | rule would appear so successful while a million spams and hams would | have so little effect? | | Thank you, | Jo3 | |
