> I've seen other people say this. My question is "why NOT
> send the listserv traffic through sa-learn as well?". After
> all, it is legit email you get, right?
I would NOT recommend feeding SAtalk automatically through sa-learn,
because people frequently include portions of spam in discussio
Robert Menschel wrote:
> You beat me to it ... I was going to suggest the same thing. I've been
> feeding all of my list traffic through sa-learn for the past month, and
> if anything it has improved my Bayes performance.
I think the idea of bypassing list mail is efficiency - you know it's not
Hello Chris,
Tuesday, December 2, 2003, 10:42:06 AM, you wrote:
CB> Chuck Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I also send all email which is ham through my sa-learn, with the
>> exception of my high volume email lists, which procmail filters out
>> before SA.
CB> I've seen other people sa
At 01:42 PM 12/2/2003, Chris Barnes wrote:
> I also send all email which is ham through my sa-learn, with the
> exception of my high volume email lists, which procmail filters out
> before SA.
I've seen other people say this. My question is "why NOT send the
listserv traffic through sa-learn a
Chuck Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I also send all email which is ham through my sa-learn, with the
> exception of my high volume email lists, which procmail filters out
> before SA.
I've seen other people say this. My question is "why NOT send the
listserv traffic through sa-learn a
