On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 09:20:56 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >> >> > On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 06:13:06 -0600 @lbutlr wrote:
> >> >> >> I have a script that runs when a mail is moved out of the
> >> >> >> Junk folder to pass the mail through sa-learn --ham,
>
> >> >You can work around the plugin's deficiencies by using
> >> >autotraining or doing some additional training, but then the
> >> >plugin is of limited relevance.
>
> >On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 10:41:51 +0200 Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >> Of course, both autotraining AND the fixing errors are required to
> >> work properly.
>
> On 19.06.18 22:27, RW wrote:
> >Then you have worst of both worlds. I'm not saying the plugin is
> >completely useless for Bayes, but 'not completely useless' is not
> >much of a recommendation.
>
> I'd say the best, or nearly the best:
>
> - autolearning works
> - user can correct mistakes.
SA autotraining is can be too selective, and both the plugin and
autotraining are poor at learning ham. And many users wont correct all
mistakes.
It seem inferior to simple manual imap training folders, or webmail
training.
> do you know of better way than manual reviewing all BAYES scores for
> all mail?
I do, but I wouldn't recommend it for general users.
I use training folders and have a sieve script that does something
like this:
if score >= 15 && sanity-checks {
# definitely spam (zero FPs)
file into <high-scoring spam folder>
if needs-training-as-spam {
file into <train spam folder>
}
}
elsif score >= 5 {
# low-scoring spam or spam that need inspection
file into <low-scoring spam folder>
}
else {
if needs-training-as-ham {
file a copy into <unsure ham folder>
}
# start of filing rules
...
}
Anything in <low-scoring spam folder> or <unsure ham folder> gets
manually moved to a training folder. I occasionally copy some manually
selected ham as well, to keep up the numbers.
Almost all my ham hits BAYES_00 these days, and with local rules >99%
of spam is over the 15 points needed for automated handling. It
requires very little effort.
