spamassassin-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Hardin <>
Subject Re: Spam messages autolearned as ham
Date Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:51:42 GMT
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014, Deeztek Support wrote:

> On 9/25/2014 9:26 AM, Deeztek Support wrote:
>>  On 9/25/2014 6:31 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> >  On 24.09.14 14:03, Deeztek Support wrote:
>> > >  score BAYES_00    0.000
>> > 
>> >  why 0? current is -1.5 without and -1.9 with network checks...
>>  Do you mean that the default is supposed to be -1.5 without networks
>>  tests and -1.9 with network tests?
> I went ahead and set BAYES_00 to -1.9 and I just received a spam message with 
> these headers:
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.204 tagged_above=-999 required=0.6
> 	 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DCC_CHECK=1.1, FROM_STARTS_WITH_NUMS=0.738,
> 	 autolearn=disabled
> From looking at it, it looks like the BAYES_00 took away -1.9 which made the 
> difference of whether or not it got tagged as spam or not. I don't think -1.9 
> is the correct setting here. Any thoughts?

Having a negative score for BAYES_00 is the standard.

If BAYES_00 hits on a spam, that indicates training issues.

Since you're reporting problems with autolearn, that's not at all 
surprising. Your bayes database is probably polluted.

You are probably going to have to wipe and retrain your bayes database 
from scratch using known-good (i.e. hand classified) corpora. I also 
suggest turning off autolearn.

You *did* keep your initial Bayes training corpora, right?

  John Hardin KA7OHZ              FALaholic #11174     pgpk -a
  key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C  AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
   The yardstick you should use when considering whether to support a
   given piece of legislation is "what if my worst enemy is chosen to
   administer this law?"
  847 days since the first successful private support mission to ISS (SpaceX)

View raw message