Webmaster wrote: > From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Jeff Portwine wrote: > > > Hmm.. I don't quite understand this. At my company, we forward > > > any spam that gets through to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and any ham marked > > > as spam to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... this was set up long ago before > > > I even started working here and the spam filter worked really > > > well. Recently our bayes database was broken and I ended up > > > clearing it and retraining it with old spam and ham. Since that > > > time a lot of spams that were getting through STOPPED getting > > > through after a couple of days of forwarding them to the spam > > > address... and I haven't seen any false spams. So it seems > > > like it does work for us, but you're saying it shouldn't ? > > > > Correct. It shouldn't work very well. > > > > Also if your users are only or mostly forwarding spam, SA's > > bayes is going to have a bayes bias that all messages > > forwarded by your mail clients are spam, regardless of content. > > > > > > Does this also mean that it is almost useless to share bayes from > one server to the next if each server has its own set of hosted > domains ? > Because if the headers play such an important role, spams targetting > different sets of domains, I assume, are learned differently.
Not really. The main use for the headers is to tell where the message came from. The final destination only shows up in one header and is not as important. The problem with forwarding messages into Bayes is that you lose all of the information relating to the servers the mail passed through on it's way to you. Bayes works best on a per-user basis since everyone gets different types of spam and ham email. But if you can't (or don't want to) do it that way, it will also work just fine as a site-wide database. -- Bowie
