This is a discussion on Re: BAYES_99 and ham - SpamAssassin ; > >martin f krafft writes: > >>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 ...
> >martin f krafft writes:
> >>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.
> >>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?
I was also thinking about this problem...
> Justin Mason schrieb:
> >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...
I have perfectly configured BAYES filter but I'm a bit afraid of turning
Couldn't BAYES filter narrow its decisions based on number of spams/hams in
Like, if there's less than 500 spams and 500 hams in DB, the BAYES would not
return more than BAYES_80 and less than BAYES_20. Under 1000/1000 it would
not return more than BAYES_95 and less than BAYES_05. Or maybe the count of
spams/hams could be handled separately...
On 26.07.07 13:40, Matthias Haegele wrote:
> Yes, most users wont train, but constantly complain about the bad
> performance of spam scoring ;-).
The downside is, that even if user train much, they'll get _much_ of spam
hitting only 3.5 points with BAYES_99. They don't think it's good to train
since it doesn't help. Not every user who can train (by scripts provided by
admin) can also modify the score. I'm also afraid that users able to modify
score would set some scores too high or too low and then complaining even
> Never seen False Scoring for BAYES_99 (well trained, manual).
> Spam rarely gets > BAYES_50.
This has to be "ham", right?
> So the higher score works fine (for me).
as I said above, I'm afraid about modifying scores for users, even for me.
I hope that default scores in SA will have spread a bit more, so users will
have a bit more power over them, when training SA carefully, not just when
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, firstname.lastname@example.org ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
BSE = Mad Cow Desease ... BSA = Mad Software Producents Desease