Karsten Bräckelmann <guent...@rudersport.de> writes: >> This shows me that I have no idea what these magic things are :) Does >> this tell you anything useful? > >> 0.000 0 6798614 0 non-token data: nspam >> 0.000 0 19136753 0 non-token data: nham > > That's quite a lot of ham compared to the spam... Does that really > reflect your mail instream?
I would suspect not, since we probably get more spam than non-spam. However, perhaps the spamassassin autolearning caused this? Perhaps the DB is so out of whack, I should just reset it from scratch and try it again. Its a lot of data to loose and I am not sure exactly the right way to do that... so I'd be somewhat reluctant to do so. Might be better if I could clean it out some. > 19 M hams learned and an SQL Bayes storage backend. Site wide. Do you > trust your users? Any chance some of them are training badly? At worst No, I don't trust my users. In fact because of that we moved from doing site-wide training to selected users who can demonstrate that they understand how to train. Perhaps these numbers are legacy from before we switched to this method. thanks, micah
