Hosting Provided By

Re: Bayesian filtering not kicking in, but it's trained.

From: Anthony Peacock <a.peacock(at)chime.ucl.ac.uk>
Date: Thu Sep 06 2007 - 10:34:57 EDT

Hi,

RinkWorks wrote:
>
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:

>> don't you have turned bayes filtering off somewhere? use_bayes_rules 0?
>>

>
> No. That's what's so confusing. But there's an update now. Apparently at
> some point
> yesterday, BAYES tests just suddenly started showing up. I wasn't doing
> anything at the
> time; it just suddenly started kicking in. That doesn't make a whole lot of
> sense to me
> unless I had *just* autolearned enough spams and hams for Bayesian filtering
> to take hold.
> But as I say, I was hundreds of hams and thousands of spams over the minimum
> long before
> that.
>
> So it's a mystery, I guess, but case closed. But thank you very much for
> giving this matter
> your attention.

To me this sounds like the Bayes database you are looking at when you check the number of learnt messages is not the same one used when scanning emails. Are you running the checks on the Bayes database as the same user that SA runs as normally?

-- 
Anthony Peacock
CHIME, Royal Free & University College Medical School
WWW:    
http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/~rmhiajp/
"A CAT scan should take less time than a PET scan.  For a CAT scan,
  they're only looking for one thing, whereas a PET scan could result in
  a lot of things."    - Carl Princi, 2002/07/19

Received on Thu Sep 6 10:35:46 2007

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Marc Perkel: "Who wants my spam - seriously!"
Previous message: RinkWorks: "Re: Bayesian filtering not kicking in, but it's trained."
In reply to: RinkWorks: "Re: Bayesian filtering not kicking in, but it's trained."
Next in thread: RinkWorks: "Re: Bayesian filtering not kicking in, but it's trained."

Contemporary messages sorted: [ By Date ] [ By Thread ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ] [ By messages with attachments ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Oct 27 2007 - 00:17:31 EDT