On Tue, 2014-09-02 at 21:16 -0600, LuKreme wrote:
> On 02 Sep 2014, at 20:50 , Karsten Bräckelmann <guent...@rudersport.de> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-09-02 at 20:22 -0600, LuKreme wrote:
> >> I believe the score threshold is the base score WITHOUT bayes.
> >>
> >> Try running the email through with a -D flag and see what you get.
> >>
> >> (And that is only a partial answer, the threshold number ignores
> >> certain classes of tests beyond bayes,but I don't remember which ones.
> >> It's unfortunate that the learn_threshold_spam uses a number that
> >> appears to be related to the spam score, because it isn't.
> >
> > It is. Using the accompanying, non-Bayes score-set. To avoid direct
> > Bayes self-feeding, and other rules indirect self-feeding due to Bayes-
> > enabled scores.
> >
> > BTW, if one knows of that mysterious (bayes_auto_) learn_threshold_spam
> > you mentioned, one found the AutoLearnThreshold doc mentioning exactly
> > that: Bayes auto-learning is based on non-Bayes scores.
>
> But that is not the case, You can have a score without bayes that
> exceeds the threshold and still have the message not auto learned.
True.
I chose to not repeat myself highlighting the details and mentioning the
constraint of header and body rules' points. See my other post half an
hour earlier to this thread. And the docs.
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
