On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 3:33 AM, Tom Hendrikx <t...@whyscream.net> wrote: > > > On 10-01-17 07:07, Michael B Allen wrote: >> If I understand correctly, the BAYES_X tags add a value corresponding >> to the X value. So BAYES_99 is basically adding 0.99 to the spam >> score? > > This is incorrect. The number in the tag only corresponds with the > result of the bayesian classification. The score of the rule is static > and is set in one of the config files managed by sa-update. > >> >> Ideally I feel it should be possible to scale this value such as by >> using simple multiplication or even exponentially. >> >> Is it possible to increase the score associated with the BAYES_99 and >> BAYES_999 tags? > > Yes. Just define a custom score in local.cf for the rule: > > score BAYES_99 3.0 > > Just be aware that the defaults are chosen wisely, and if you think some > score should be higher, then discuss that problem here. Maybe there's a > flaw in your setup that makes other rules perform less then optimal (DNS > issues f.i.).
Here is an example message: http://pastebin.com/raw/66WQ8nNb Going through ham I don't see anything above BAYES_50 so I think my bayes is working well enough to lean on it a little more. Here is my local.cf in it's entirety: --8<-- bayes_path /var/log/spamassassin/.spamassassin/bayes bayes_file_mode 0777 # These values can be overridden by editing ~/.spamassassin/user_prefs.cf # (see spamassassin(1) for details) # These should be safe assumptions and allow for simple visual sifting # without risking lost emails. required_hits 5 report_safe 0 rewrite_header Subject [SPAM] required_score 5
