Am 12.10.2014 um 18:59 schrieb LuKreme:
On 10 Oct 2014, at 06:49 , RW <rwmailli...@googlemail.com> wrote:And, if not, is it generally better to do sitewide?It's hard to say, there are advantages and disadvantages either way.OK, so specific example then. Small server with a few dozen email users spread over several domains. Almost none of these users does any spam training at all, the rest just delete unwanted messages (not even marking them as junk) or even worse, just ignore them. One user is very aggressive in marking Spam and in keeping the Inbox clear of all spam. I am of two minds. First, that everyone else would benefit from this user’s actions or, alternatively, that the user’s aggressive tagging will actually ‘poison’ the bayes db for the other users who maybe do not think that endless emails from pinterest or some political candidate are actually spam.
if nobody trains his user specific bayes (like here) site-wide is the way to go, just because until a user has flagged 200 ham messages his bayes won#t get used regardless of the amount of spam marked ones
merge "a users aggressive training" site-wide means you need to trust that users actions - means: he needs to be careful and not just flag anything he don't want to see as spam
if it is really one or two users like here i would stay at a normal site-wide bayes, i realized that with IMAP shared folders where those users see a ham/spam folder to move messages there and are advised to be carfeul in case of ham samples not leak sensitive content
i review that stuff, save the eml messages to the training folders on the mailserver and call the sa-learn script, until now a nearly 100% result over 8 weeks production (99% spam catched, no false positives)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
