This is a discussion on Re: BAYES_99 and ham - SpamAssassin ; Justin Mason schrieb: > 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 ...
Justin Mason schrieb:
> 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...
Yes, most users wont train, but constantly complain about the bad
performance of spam scoring ;-).
Never seen False Scoring for BAYES_99 (well trained, manual).
Spam rarely gets > BAYES_50.
So the higher score works fine (for me).
Just my 2 cent.
Dont send mail to: firstname.lastname@example.org