Am 22.09.2016 um 10:16 schrieb Thomas Barth:
Am 21.09.2016 um 18:47 schrieb Bowie Bailey:

That is ridiculous.  The more training bayes gets the better it works.
And manual training is better than autolearning because autolearning can
automatically learn false positives and false negatives and cause
problems for the database.

And what about filter poisening?  In the last 10 hours my company address
got 43 mails classified as spam (even a virus mail detected today). And
there was one mail classified as spam due to my rule (bad country,

Dear so,

Your payment has been approved. Your account will be debited within two

You can email us for any query regarding your account.

Thank you.

Lupe Monroe

There is no spam content, am I right? Normal words and content that a
normal person can use. I dont need spam learning for all the mails
already classified as spam with high score. Spam with low score are
interesting for spam learning like this one. But when I use these mails
for spam learning there is a risk of false positive some day, because it
has learned that normal mails are also spam?

no you are not right - that *is spam content* and has nothing to do with bayes poisioning - in fact that are malware messages - known by our bayes for at least 12 months and already BAYES_99 stuff will not be trained

it's the job of the bayes filter to find the minimal but existing differences and mistakes between that and similar ham and *hence* autolearning won't work in general because you need still to decide and classify the border cases

bayes poisioning can become a problem and is *another* reason why you train you filter manually instead let him decide itself and if it once decided wrong learn more and more in the wrong direction

but that above is NOT bayes poisioning

Reply via email to