Am 22.07.2015 um 13:40 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
Am 22.07.2015 um 05:05 schrieb Roman Gelfand:shortcircuit BAYES_99 spam shortcircuit BAYES_00 hamOn 22.07.15 10:09, Reindl Harald wrote:i doubt that you really want that and even if for sure not for BAYES_99 but BAYES_999, it makes no sense - bayes alone is not the only decision in a scoring system, it's one component that said from someone scoring BAYES_999 with 7.9 while milter-reject is 8.0 - the other rules are there to avoid false-positives and false-negatives for a good reasonSo THIS explains, why you blame (us) for every single low-scoring rule for hitting something you don't like!
completly untrue, if something hits BAYES_999 i expect it to get rejected by a corpus of currently 35000 spam samples, 25000 ham samples and a total of 2.5 Mio tokens
handtrained, while a default autolearning/autoexpire setup purges anything above 150000 tokens so that you are running in circles if already trained junk comes back after two months which happens regulary
a FP is a FP and in doubt questionable, always no idea why on this list any qestions are "blaming"
however, for the OP it is another reason not even to score high on BAYES_*
for the OP the shortcircuit is questionable because with low scoring BAYES_* and skip all other rules because shortcircuit he won't get useful results
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
