[Spambayes] Proposing to remove 4 combining schemes

Rob Hooft rob@hooft.net
Thu Oct 17 22:38:41 2002

Tim Peters wrote:
> [Sean True]

>>If I'm not sure it's spam, I'd prefer a score that matched that.
> Under chi-combining, a score under .95 (as a rule of thumb so far) does mean
> "I'm not sure it's spam".  So quantifying this would be helpful.

My gut feeling says: under ideal combining, a score under .95 means "I'm 
less than 95% sure this is spam".

> I only want help, but shuffling msgs off to Spam and Unsure folders for
> later review is exactly the help I want.  For example, I don't want to be
> bothered *at all* with probable spam until I put my brain in "spam mode" and
> go on a mass-delete spree dedicated to reviewing probable spam.  Until then,
> I don't want it in my inbox at all.

The first time I used SpamAssassin, I used it in label-only mode. That 
gave some relief. After using it for a month, I was confident enough to 
make a procmail rule to move spam into a spam folder without showing it 
to me. I was amazed by the amount of rest that has created. I did not 
realize that the spam was having such a psychological effect on me. This 
is definitely what I'd want from spambayes. I'd only read my "incoming 
ham". Once a week I'd go into unsure mode, and do some selection work. 
Once a month I can probably go into spam-curse mode, and do the mass 
deletion Tim talks about.

But Sean's "sort on score" idea is also very useful. I think it'd speed 
up the manual scanning/deletion process.


Rob W.W. Hooft  ||  rob@hooft.net  ||  http://www.hooft.net/people/rob/