is teaching SA ham it already marked as ham bad?

[Mike Pepe <la...@doki-doki.net>]

I've been feeding messages from my inbox into a folder that SA reads as 
ham for quite some time now.

Suddenly it occurs to me that this may be a bad idea, and I should only 
have SA learn messages as ham that it believes is spam.

This strikes me as being as bad as forcing SA to re-learn spam as spam 
again.

Am I correct in this assumption, or is re-learning good email as ham safe?

I'm hoping that I can finally put an end to these new and especially 
annoying "timepiece" emails that sneak through.

thanks

-Mike

Re: is teaching SA ham it already marked as ham bad?

[JamesDR <ja...@trusswood.net>]

Mike Pepe wrote:
> I've been feeding messages from my inbox into a folder that SA reads as 
> ham for quite some time now.
> 
> Suddenly it occurs to me that this may be a bad idea, and I should only 
> have SA learn messages as ham that it believes is spam.
> 
> This strikes me as being as bad as forcing SA to re-learn spam as spam 
> again.
> 
> Am I correct in this assumption, or is re-learning good email as ham safe?
> 
> I'm hoping that I can finally put an end to these new and especially 
> annoying "timepiece" emails that sneak through.
> 
> thanks
> 
> -Mike
> 
> 
If autolearn is enabled, and it is doing its job, then it should be 
ignoring the mails. However, if you don't have autolearn enabled, then 
training as ham/spam on correctly marked mails isn't a bad thing (IMO.) 
Keeps the DB fresh with the current mail stream. I train everything that 
was classified correctly/incorrectly and has worked well for years. 
Others may have other opinions. It appears, at least to me, the fresher 
the bayes db, the better results out of bayes.
As usual, YMMV

-- 
Thanks,
James