autolearning

[ram01 <ra...@yahoo.com>]

I understand the theory of not wanting to incorrectly learn messages. But my
question is about that statements practicality in every situation.  It makes
sense with a diverse user base, say an ISP, but what about a small company
with few users that are all competent to bot train and that will keep up
with it.  Also that has email practices that make it not feasible to just
scan their inboxs for ham.  Only auto learning the extremes as SA is setup
requires users to train large amounts of messages even if they where
correctly tagged if keeping SA up to date is desired.  Where as if SA has
the option to auto learn every message based on how it is tagged, users
would only have to retrain the messages in error, which should be
significantly less the the previous way.  The Idea is to only have to deal
with messages that are incorrectly tagged.  If one can guarantee that the
user base will keep up with the retraining, assuming that is true, how would
this effect the overall accuracy.  The few messages that are incorrectly
learned would be timely relearned correctly.
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/autolearning-tf3334541.html#a9272701
Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.