You absolutely want to train these. Example: Viagra scores 100:1 but Cialis scores 1:1. Viagra will tip your bayes score but there will come a time when the mail reads something like: V!agra and Cialis and now your Bayes contribution is nominal based on these two tokens.
But by training all the FN/FP you introduce the other tokens that may becoming more important in time. I would go on with more examples, but then the bayesian filters will probably get pissed at me. ;) On 1/26/2007, "Anthony Peacock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Hi Dan, > >Dan Barker wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Anthony Peacock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 7:22 AM >> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Bayes >> >> <snip> >> I also manually learn by mistake. All FNs & FPs are fed back to the >> system. And I occasionally feed some recent ham as ham. >> >> This has worked really well for me over a number of years. >> </snip> >> >> Anthony, I only train the False Negatives that do not already have the >> BAYES_99 hit. Should I be training all FNs? It seems to me that there could >> not be any improvement by training these messages. >> >> Please explain why this is wrong (if it is). > >Others that know Bayes better may be able to give you the definitive >answer about whether or not it makes any difference. > >Personally, I don't think it can do any harm, and it may also reinforce >the spammyness of the tokens. > >It is also possible that the BAYES_99 hit came of some tokens in the >email, but there may be others that are not yet in the database, or not >as significant for spam. And feeding the email into the learning system >will increase these tokens spammyness. But this is pure speculation on >my part. > >The bottom line for me is that it can't do any harm, it may do some >good, so I don't expend the effort to manually distinguish between those >types. > >-- >Anthony Peacock >CHIME, Royal Free & University College Medical School >WWW: http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/~rmhiajp/ >"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples >then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an >idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us >will have two ideas." -- George Bernard Shaw
