On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 12:25:38PM -0500, Mark Merchant wrote: > > After setting this up, I > > instructed the users to forward any spam messages they receive to the > > address [EMAIL PROTECTED] and any incorrectly flagged spam > > messages or sets of non-spam messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . > > < without looking at said script> > > so what happens when some joker puts mail from the company president > in the spam folder? or like my users, can't remember what the > difference between spam & ham is? so they put the porn stuff in the > ham mail box? ( could be intentional i suppose ;)
Well, if you do per user Bayes databases, they are only shooting themselves in the foot, and not anyone else. I know this has issues all its own, but I'm looking into keeping each users tasks to a minimum (or completely optional), while protecting the integrity of the filters for everyone. I just tell users to create a "spam" and "ham" mailbox (either, or both works, depending on their whims). I run a process to reap these nightly and feed them to each users Bayes db. I also keep a per user corpus from these for the last 60 days on a per user basis, so re-building can happen quickly if the Bayes db becomes corrupted. I turn of auto learn, and feed the Bayes manually. > > we could never figure out a way to do this that wasn't extremely > vulnerable to human error. If they make mistakes, I find Bayes is pretty tolerant, and still works well. Big mistakes can be fixed by manual re-learning if needed, or re-initializing from an edited corpus. > > on the positive side, automagically making whitelists out of user > address books works quite well... White lists don't stop joe-jobbed email containing viruses... -chuck
