On 22 Jul 2015, at 8:18, RW wrote:
YMMV but personally I've never had a single ham hit BAYES_99. There's currently no evidence to suggest that the OP would have any problem with short-circuiting on it.
Experiences with that absolutely do vary, widely. Keep in mind that Bayesian classification gives a statistical metric, not a human claim; the delta from 100% isn't a polite warning, it's as hard a fact as statistical prediction can provide, given a valid Bayes DB. 99.00% spam certainty from Bayes will be wrong 1% of the time, on average. If you've actually NEVER had BAYES_99 hit on ham, you're quite lucky or don't get a lot of ham. If you've never *noticed* it hit on ham because other SA rules fail to push the total score past your threshold, SA is working as designed.
FWIW, a large slice of the certain ham I saw hit BAYES_99 when I was watching a mailstream large enough to make detailed analysis useful was what one might call "boneless canned ham with artificial smoke flavoring, water added": mail addressed to people who had in fact signed up to receive willingly it and that they would never report as spam, but which they didn't really care much about receiving and which most people would believe to be spam if they saw it without knowing the fact that it was intentionally requested. In many cases essentially identical mail *was* outright spam, e.g. social network invites.
