Dumb Bayes question
list-mailscanner at linguaphone.com
Sun Aug 12 21:11:22 IST 2007
I run spamassassin on my home system which is very low usage and bayes is
working very well.
In fact I would say that bayes works better on small systems for a couple of
1) Bayes works best when it learns your individual mails. For companies
which deal with lots of different topics and areas bayes has to learn a lot
of tokens as being ham. For home servers and small organisations they
receive a far small variety of ham messages so bayes can work better.
2) The default bayes database size is geared towards the smaller user. In my
company if I used the default bayes size (which a lot of people probably do)
the oldest token age would be about 2 days which is far too short for it to
be very effective.
From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info
[mailto:mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info]On Behalf Of Steve Mason
Sent: 12 August 2007 20:35
To: 'MailScanner discussion'
Subject: Dumb Bayes question
Hi all. I've been running MailScanner for a while now my home server (4
users) and 2 small non-profit organizations, both around 10 users each.
It seems to me I read a while ago, that Bayes isn't too effective on
low-volume servers due to it not seeing many messages. Of course I can't
seem to find where I read that now.
If I use a "starter" database, and occasionally feed it any false
positive/negative messages, is Bayes worth using for very small sites?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the MailScanner