-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Theo Van Dinter writes: > On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 02:32:42PM -0600, Chris Blaise wrote: > > The rules were ALL_TRUSTED,MISSING_DATE,USER_IN_BLACKLIST and I > > think since "ALL_TRUSTED" is a negative value. > > > > Am I missing something about how auto-learn should consider this? > > > > Is there a reason why it doesn't consider such a message as spam, > > soley on the score? I realize that it won't learn spam if the header and > > body aren't at least 3 each, but for such a high score, it seems like it > > should be able to disregard that to say, "This is huge; learn it as spam." > > This has been convered many times. It's probably in the wiki, and definitely > in the documentation: > > [...] > bayes_auto_learn ( 0 | 1 ) (default: 1) > [...] > Note that certain tests are ignored when determining whether a mes- > sage should be trained upon: > > - rules with tflags set to 'learn' (the Bayesian rules) > > - rules with tflags set to 'userconf' (user white/black-listing > rules, etc) > > - rules with tflags set to 'noautolearn' > > Also note that auto-training occurs using scores from either score- > set 0 or 1, depending on what scoreset is used during message > check. It is likely that the message check and auto-train scores > will be different. > > As always though, run with -D and you'll find out plenty. ;) BTW the idea of USER_IN_BLACKLIST being ignored for bayes is so that if a user screws up and accidentally BLs a ham source, it won't pollute Bayes as well. I think in 3.0.0 we've added more logic so that it won't be learned *at all* in that situation -- not as ham or spam. - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFBPiT2QTcbUG5Y7woRAhR6AKC2yiFRhAWioYJCoyBH06vwEY5rfgCfdhzA BNxtJ4X61mlXo4vvjyWlDwE= =d/QW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
