On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 11:19:08 -0600 Amir 'CG' Caspi wrote: > A number of my users have been receiving spam formatted in a > very specific way which seems to very often miss Bayes... I don't > know why, whether it's because of the HTML gibberish flooding Bayes > with useless tokens (to reduce the relative strength of the spammy > tokens), or if it's just the specific content isn't sufficiently > spammy (or has sufficient ham to balance) to pop.
BAYES works on rendered text it doesn't see the HTML. > (Like many other users here, I've also increased the Bayes scores for > Bayes99, and created a Bayes999 with even higher scoring... it might > be time to add that to the general distribution, too.) Do you actually get a significant amount of ham between 0.99 and 0.999? Personally I only get 1 in 1000 above 0.55, and nothing above 0.65.
