Re: Can I classify just a few messages from the same yahoonewsgroup?

[Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.org>]

On Thu, 12 May 2011 14:51:05 -0700 (PDT), leonardevens
<le...@math.northwestern.edu> wrote:

> But recently I got email posted from a yahoo group which I subscribe to
> which contained spam.   If I classify those messages as spam, will all
the
> messages from that gorup also be classified as spam?   How should I
prceed
> to limit such spam without disrupting legitimate messages?

make more spam rules in local.cf and awoid manuel trainning unless bayes
is screwed up, if spammassassin does not do it correct it missing rules to
know more about what spam is, and you know it ? :-)

Re: Can I classify just a few messages from the same yahoo newsgroup?

[Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk>]

> > I'd say that manual training of spam and ham in such group is needed
> > in such cases.

On 16.05.11 14:45, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> manuel training is sign of to much whitelistning with default score of
> -100, most ham here does not even need it, so bayes is here is more passive
> on this here, and this makes more sure that ham that is ham is autolearned
> as ham, still have not needed to help bayes here to make the right scores,
> but i am avare of this as scores is not always best with -100, eg use
> def_whitelist_* if whitelist_from_* is to much

I have small problems to understand you, again. Can you please split into
sentences?

> when maillist groubs get in grey of ham spam then manuel training can be
> one way of make it, but olso its possible to make more rules to catch spam,
> its just a matter of prefer :)

Imho, manual training of ham/spam is much better than manual whitelisting and
blacklisting. 

It's not always possible to manually make rules or whitelists to correctly
sort out spam, it's much more often possible to train properly.

-- 
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines. 

Re: Can I classify just a few messages from the same yahoonewsgroup?

[Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.org>]

 
> I'd say that manual training of spam and ham in such group is needed
> in such cases.

manuel training is sign of to much whitelistning with default score of
-100, most ham here does not even need it, so bayes is here is more passive
on this here, and this makes more sure that ham that is ham is autolearned
as ham, still have not needed to help bayes here to make the right scores,
but i am avare of this as scores is not always best with -100, eg use
def_whitelist_* if whitelist_from_* is to much

when maillist groubs get in grey of ham spam then manuel training can be
one way of make it, but olso its possible to make more rules to catch spam,
its just a matter of prefer :)

Re: Can I classify just a few messages from the same yahoo newsgroup?

[Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk>]

> On Thu, 12 May 2011 14:51:05 -0700 (PDT), leonardevens
> <le...@math.northwestern.edu> wrote:
> 
> > But recently I got email posted from a yahoo group which I subscribe to
> > which contained spam.  If I classify those messages as spam, will all
> > the messages from that gorup also be classified as spam?  How should I
> > prceed to limit such spam without disrupting legitimate messages?

On 13.05.11 02:58, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> make more spam rules in local.cf and awoid manuel trainning unless bayes
> is screwed up, if spammassassin does not do it correct it missing rules to
> know more about what spam is, and you know it ? :-)

can you explain more depply what exactly you mean here?

I'd say that manual training of spam and ham in such group is needed
in such cases. 

-- 
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
Remember half the people you know are below average.