[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       spamassassin-users
Subject:    Re: Rule HK_SCAM is triggered by standard business email
From:       " () lbutlr" <kremels () kreme ! com>
Date:       2020-07-02 15:07:31
Message-ID: 09D5A7E6-7B08-4FCF-9D3B-7A249F64B95F () kreme ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 01 Jul 2020, at 14:20, Aner Perez <aner@ncstech.com> wrote:
> we have the spam threshold set very low (2.4)

This is a terrible idea and exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of how SA works.

If SA scores an email as 3.3 then the message is not considered spam by SA. If you \
ignore this and mark it as sam anyway, you have no one to blame but yourself. \
Reducing the threshold increases the number of non-spam messages that are marked as \
spam. It will also have very little effect on actual spam messages. The only \
exception to this is if you have a badly trained Bayes, as that can swing the scoring \
quite a lot.

Set your threshold back to 5.0 and train your Bayes with actual spam you receive and \
actual ham you receive. The best Spam to train is spam that is not tagged by SA as \
spam (ignoring the bayes portion of a score). So, a message marked at 5.5 with \
BAYES_50 is a price candidate for training as it would be marked 4.7 without the \
BAYES_50.

It would have been better, I think, had SA designed the system to score anything over \
0 as spam and anything under 0 as ham as I suspect very few people would make this \
mistake, but it's a bit late for that now.

Just think of it this way, when you set the threshold below 5, you are saying to SA \
"please mark legitimate mail theat I want to receive as spam."



-- 
'Oh, them as makes the endings don't get them,' said Granny.
	--Maskerade


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]