[TriLUG] Training Spamassassin
rick.denatale at gmail.com
Mon Jan 24 09:07:07 EST 2005
I only train SA with either:
1) Spam which got through (false negatives).
2) Ham which triggered a false positive and was mistakenly marked as spam.
As I understand it SA automatically trains itself on spam which it
traps to tune on what spam techniques are au courant.
I haven't seen too much in the way of false positives out of SA in
quite a while. The gmail spam filter on the other hand seems to get a
few false positives every week.
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 08:46:17 -0500, Brian Henning
<brian at strutmasters.com> wrote:
> Hi Guys,
> As I'm sure the postmasters among us are well-aware, in order to keep
> my Bayesian filter working efficiently, it's occasionally necessary to
> retrain it for new tacks the spammers have invented. My question is
> thus: Is it "safe" and/or wise to train with only -spam input? Our
> non-spam profile hasn't changed much, so the previous -ham training
> ought to still be valid...right? Or do I need to somehow balance the
> training "sessions" with equal parts -spam and -ham even though the -ham
> still looks about the same?
> Thanks as always,
> TriLUG mailing list : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> TriLUG Organizational FAQ : http://trilug.org/faq/
> TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/
> TriLUG PGP Keyring : http://trilug.org/~chrish/trilug.asc
More information about the TriLUG