On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:40:12 +0200 Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > >Am 22.07.2015 um 05:05 schrieb Roman Gelfand: > >>shortcircuit BAYES_99 spam > >>shortcircuit BAYES_00 ham > > On 22.07.15 10:09, Reindl Harald wrote: > >i doubt that you really want that and even if for sure not for > >BAYES_99 but BAYES_999, it makes no sense - bayes alone is not the > >only decision in a scoring system, it's one component > > > >that said from someone scoring BAYES_999 with 7.9 while > >milter-reject is 8.0 - the other rules are there to avoid > >false-positives and false-negatives for a good reason > > So THIS explains, why you blame (us) for every single low-scoring > rule for hitting something you don't like!
It really doesn't if you think about it. What does explain it is his increased score for BAYES_50, and an increase in some non-Bayes scores. > however, for the OP it is another reason not even to score high on > BAYES_* YMMV but personally I've never had a single ham hit BAYES_99. There's currently no evidence to suggest that the OP would have any problem with short-circuiting on it.
