Well, that was part of my reason for doing it. My bayes is seriously
skewed for the spam side, something like 4 to 1. The problem is I'm
getting about 90% spam coming in, so it's difficult enough finding
legitimate mail to feed it. I wasn't talking about feeding strictly
outbounds, but using them as an additional source of ham.
>>> On 8/21/2006 at 6:20 PM, "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: "Joe Zitnik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> Our scanning program has the ability to archive all e-mail, both
inbound
>> and outbound, which we have been doing for months now. Given that
your
>> outbound mail is almost certainly ham, the majority of it's content
is
>> going to be specific to our business sector, wouldn't feeding
outbounds
>> through bayes manually be a win win situation? Am I
oversimplifying
>> things, or am I missing something with that logic?
>
> If the terms in the outbound mail are likely to be the same as
> acceptable terms on the inbound mail that may be true. If your
> outbound mail you have captured is not all pure business it might
> reduce the Bayes accuracy somewhat.
>
> It might introduce a huge mismatch between ham and spam, also.
>
> And it might introduce potential issues with email privacy on the
> outgoing emails if you save them for a mass feed.
>
> {^_^}
