Re: [Evolution] Spam Filtering

[Hans <hvdmerwe sunspace co za>]

On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 19:27 +1100, Rod Butcher wrote:
> Hans wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 18:37 +1100, Rod Butcher wrote:
> >
> > Ok, but still, won't marking "new" messages as not-Junk also make SA do
> > the analysis?  
> I'm not 100% sure. But remember, filters err on the side of caution - if 
> it's not sure it won't flag it as junk. Hence telling it something isn't 
> junk when it already has decided it isn't is unlikely to teach it much, 
> if anything you're just confirming what it already believes.
> On the other hand, telling it something is junk when it has not yet 
> decided it is, or telling it someting isn't when it thinks it is, 
> presents it with A1 opportunities to learn from - learning from mistakes.
>  From my own experience of training evolution, I needed to flag +- 100 
> examples as junk, and only 1 or 2 corrections (flagging junk as not 
> junk). But this last action will depend on the nature of your 
> "legitimate" email - if you get a lot of key spamlike words in your 
> regular email you may indeed have to correct quite a few bad spam decisions.
> Rod


Ok, thanks

Last tricky one.  What if I have 20 known (repeating) spam messages, can
I Junk them over and over again to up the count on those specific
contents?
In other words, if I have messages I get over and over again, can I
"fool" SA by marking the messages as Junk over and over again to get to
200 messages quicker?
I just cant wait to get 200x Viagra discounts :)