On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Matt Kettler wrote:
Péntek Imre wrote:
Hello,
Why BAYES_99 have only the score 3.5 while 5.0 is required to identify a mail
as spam? I think this rule should have a score about 5.1 (or anything greater
than 5.0).
Because it's baye_99 not bayes_100.
ie: it's not 100% accurate.
FWIW, I increased my bayes 95 and 99 rules to the same as the
2.x releases. It has worked great at the stock spams (many of
which are caught on bayes 99 alone). The 'wrote:' and the
newer 'It's <name> :)' are being easily caught with bayes 99
as well :)
I guess YMMV of course, but it's worked well here w/o the need
to come up with custom rules every time some new spammer trick
rolls around.
--
Jon Trulson
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
#include <std/disclaimer.h>
"No Kill I" -Horta
