[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > My problem is this: I'm using squirrelmail, As your only email access?
> and to keep an eye on false negatives (I define those as real mails > that get shuttled to spam, just to keep things clear) I have a 'spam' > folder. As anyone that uses sqmail knows, it gets very slow when any > folder contains more than a few hundred messages. <g> Try several thousand, as a number of customers have reported to me... Actually, it's only spewed out error messages in a very few cases. > But, since my > filter is trained very well, I'd like to send autolearned spams to > /mail/Trash (ultimately to /dev/null) so I don't have to deal with > those. Mmm. Dangerous - I've seen FPs get autolearned as spam once or twice. :( What I do on my accounts is set up a "big-spam" folder, and rely on the X-Spam-Level header to move mail there. Anything scoring 15 or higher gets 15 or more stars in X-Spam-Level, and I have this: :0: * ^X-Spam-Level:.\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* /home/kdeugau/mail/bigspam before the check that files spam in my "main" spam folder. With the well-tuned 2.64+SURBL systems I have, ~80% or the spam usually ends up in the "big-spam" folder. > I figured just setting bayes_auto_learn_threshold_spam 6 would > work great. It really does not do much of anything. I've decreased > it to 3, and to 1, but it really doesnt make a difference. I found > these relevant lines in a debug: [snip] > debug: auto-learn? ham=0.1, spam=1, body-points=0, head-points=-2.82, > learned-points=1.886 > debug: auto-learn? no: scored as spam but too few body points (0 < 3) These two entries are the critical ones; note the body-points and head-points. To be autolearned as spam, a message must hit tests worth a total of 3 points or more on header tests, and a total of 3 points or more on body tests. I notice you're still using the default autolearn-as-ham setting; this is dangerous as very low-scoring spam can get autolearned incorrectly. I've dropped it to -0.01 on my systems to prevent this. > What, exactly, is going on here? The head points I can explain (this > is a spam I saved that had already come to me) but the body points - > I don't understand. It also wasn't clear to me until this debug that > the autolearn had its own scoring system. Not entirely; to decide whether to autolearn a message one of the "no-Bayes" score sets is used to calculate the scores, depending on whether you've got network tests disabled or not. -kgd -- Get your mouse off of there! You don't know where that email has been!
