On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 19:27 +1100, Rod Butcher wrote: > > Ok, but still, won't marking "new" messages as not-Junk also make SA do > > the analysis? > I'm not 100% sure. But remember, filters err on the side of caution - if > it's not sure it won't flag it as junk. Hence telling it something isn't > junk when it already has decided it isn't is unlikely to teach it much, > if anything you're just confirming what it already believes. > On the other hand, telling it something is junk when it has not yet > decided it is, or telling it someting isn't when it thinks it is, > presents it with A1 opportunities to learn from - learning from mistakes. > From my own experience of training evolution, I needed to flag +- 100 > examples as junk, and only 1 or 2 corrections (flagging junk as not > junk). But this last action will depend on the nature of your > "legitimate" email - if you get a lot of key spamlike words in your > regular email you may indeed have to correct quite a few bad spam decisions.
This was discussed very recently. The "Non-junk" button does not do what most people (including me) would expect. The thing it does is cancels out a previously messages marked as "spam". So if you first mark a message as "junk" and then apply "not junk" to it, the netto result is zero. On the other hand, applying "not junk" on a message that was not previously marked as "junk" does absolutly *nothing* (which is very bad imho).
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
