Michael D Schleif <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * "Keith C. Ivey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004:02:25:23:55:15-0500] scribed: > <snip /> > > > Along with those five examples of correctly identified spams, > > you did post two examples where the AWL adjustment may have > > caused a false negative. But in both cases the message > > triggered BAYES_00, which probably had a larger contribution to > > the miscategorization. Judging by those I'd say the real > > problem is spam being incorrectly autolearned as ham. Spam > > should not be getting BAYES_00 or BAYES_01, as it is in the > > majority of your examples. Maybe you should be blaming > > autolearning rather than autowhitelisting. > > I am intrigued by your last sentence. Care to expound?
It seems an obvious conclusion from the preceding sentences in the paragraph. When spam is getting BAYES_00 or BAYES_01, it's a strong indication that some spam has been mislearned as ham. Usually such mislearning happens because of autolearning, though it could also happen by mistakes in manual learning. -- Keith C. Ivey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Washington, DC
