martin f krafft writes:
> Hi list,
> I just had a flood of spam coming through, which SA classified as
> ham. On closer inspection, it turns out that the only tests
> triggered for all those mails were HTML_MESSAGE and BAYES_99.
> HTML messages are commonplace today (unfortunately), so they don't
> add anything to the score.
> BAYES_99 yields 3.5 points.
> What's curious is that in this scenario, even though SA thinks that
> the message is 99%-100% likely to be spam, it will always classify
> it as ham, and further learning does not have any noticeable effect.
> I know how SA scores are computed. I do wonder how that algorithm
> applies to the BAYES_* tests though. Don't you think BAYES_99 should
> yield > 5 points to trigger the threshold on default installs?
> Shouldn't thus BAYES_* be renormalised?

The Bayes rules are too dependent on user training to be entirely
trustworthy, and most users will not train them enough, or occasionally
make mistakes, for them to be treated as such. However, if you've put in
the effort to train them well, feel free to increase their score...