On Sunday, November 10 2013, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> nham is the "Number of HAM" learned, in messages. Same for nspam. Keep
> training until both are at least 200 -- accuracy should improve
> dramatically after that.
I figured that out.
> Keep an eye on the X-Spam-Status header, autolearn b
On Sun, 2013-11-10 at 02:39 -0200, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:
> On Sunday, November 10 2013, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > > So, I now have yet another question. I let auto_learn active for SA,
> > > and now for every false-negative SA will learn that it is not spam,
> >
> > No. False negative
On Sunday, November 10 2013, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-11-10 at 01:59 -0200, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:
>> Nice, thanks both of you for the answers.
>>
>> I am now feeding SA with ham from my INBOX, while I also feed it with
>> false-negatives (interestingly, I am receiving now
On Sun, 2013-11-10 at 01:59 -0200, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:
> Nice, thanks both of you for the answers.
>
> I am now feeding SA with ham from my INBOX, while I also feed it with
> false-negatives (interestingly, I am receiving now *much* more spam than
> I was a week ago...).
Given what you s
On Saturday, November 09 2013, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> Ham is good mail, messages you want (or actually subscribed to),
> messages sent to you with your consent. Spam is junk, unsolicited mail
> sent to you without your consent. Regardless of SA classification or
> score.
>
> False positives
Please keep mailing-list threads on-list. Do not reply personally.
On Sat, 2013-11-09 at 09:02 -0600, Sergio wrote:
> Thank you for your kind answers.
>
> Well, I am using cpanel with MailScanner and added this rule to my MCP
> set of rules, that are the same as SpamAssassin, the score is becaus
On Sat, 2013-11-09 at 03:33 -0200, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:
> On Saturday, November 09 2013, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>
> > You don't have any kind of archive of spam? If so, train on recent ones,
> > feel free to exceed the minimum limit, but don't bother too much with
> > old spam. It chan
On Sat, 9 Nov 2013, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:
On Saturday, November 09 2013, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
You don't have any kind of archive of spam? If so, train on recent ones,
feel free to exceed the minimum limit, but don't bother too much with
old spam. It changes much faster over time t
