> > I understand that the individual test scores are fed through a neural
> > network to derive the final score. So it seems that this network has
> > started to behave badly.
>
> You misunderstand. The neural network (or whatever they're using these
> days - it at least used to be a genetic al
> What is the output of this on your mesages?
>
> spamassassin -tD 2>&1 | pager
>
> What value does it show for BAYES_99 in the content analysis section?
> If it says something other than 4.07 then it confirms that you are not
> running with values from column four network test off. It sounds
>
On Saturday 05 March 2005 1:21 pm, Andrew Schulman wrote:
> I understand that the individual test scores are fed through a neural
> network to derive the final score. So it seems that this network has
> started to behave badly.
You misunderstand. The neural network (or whatever they're using t
Andrew Schulman wrote:
> I'm running spamc/spamd 3.0.2 in Debian. I have Bayesian tests turned on,
> and network tests off.
I am running a similar system. But with network tests turned on. The
network tests such as SURBL[1] are huge factors in increasing spam
classification accuracy for me.
>
I'm running spamc/spamd 3.0.2 in Debian. I have Bayesian tests turned on,
and network tests off.
Lately a lot of spam has been getting through to my mailbox. SA's false
negative rate used to be about 1%; now it's about 50%. Looking at the
headers for the spam that's getting through, I see that
