Kevin Hanser said: > Yeah, I've been doing a combination of the auto-learning and manual > learning. I have a site-wide bayes db set up (like it said on the wiki) > and I have an email address for ham and spam that people redirect > messages to. I've told people that they have to use the Action -> > Resend method in outlook to send messages to these two learning > addresses, and as far as I know they have been (but I don't have any way > to verify that). > > Whenever I get one of these messages I make sure to do the Action -> > Resend thing and send it on to the spam@ address so that bayes will > learn from it. Just didn't know if there was something else wrong w/my > bayes db or if it just needs more training.. Sounds like it just needs > more training :)
On the contrary, I believe you should next to NEVER get BAYES_00 on a spam; if you do get results like this, your bayes DB is likely hosed. I suggest wiping your DB and re-training it. If you are really curious you could try examining the heavily weighted words from a spam that has BAYES_00 by using "spamassassin -D rulesrun=255 < spam.txt" -- Chris Thielen Easily generate SpamAssassin rules to catch obfuscated spam phrases (0BFU$C/\TED SPA/\/\ P|-|RA$ES): http://www.sandgnat.com/cmos/
