spamassassin-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Joe Acquisto-j4" <j...@j4computers.com>
Subject Re: local score ignored
Date Fri, 19 Apr 2013 10:09:41 GMT
>>> On 4/19/2013 at 12:06 AM, John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
> 
>>>>> On 4/18/2013 at 7:21 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uhlar@fantomas.sk>
wrote:
>>> On 18.04.13 06:45, Joe Acquisto-j4 wrote:
>>>> I was concerned about this:
>>>>
>>>> [score: 0.4968]
>>>
>>> This meant that BAYES has computer 49.56% probability that the mail is spam
>>> and the rest (50.44%) that it is HAM.
>>
>> ok
>>
>>> DO NOT play with BAYES_50 score.
>>
>> ?  What can it hurt?
> 
> BAYES_50 is the bayes classifier's way of saying "insufficient data" or "I 
> don't know".
> 
> Do you really want to assign 3 points for "I don't know"?
> 
> -- 
>   John Hardin KA7OHZ                    http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/ 
>   jhardin@impsec.org    FALaholic #11174     pgpk -a jhardin@impsec.org 
>   key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C  AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>    Ten-millimeter explosive-tip caseless, standard light armor
>    piercing rounds. Why?
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Tomorrow: the 238th anniversary of The Shot Heard 'Round The World

In this case, from the samples I've seen.   Absolutely, yes. 

For me, this last few days, I have seen lots of missed spam that has virtually nothing else
to trigger on.  

Been so irritated by this I considered giving it a 5.0.   But, even for me, that's over the
top.

joe a


Mime
View raw message