I've purchased v.2 - waited for 5000 rejected mails og finally in this weekend, the filter kicked in. But to what use ? I have seen two emails score higher than 0.05% - the rest is lower.

Am I doing something wrong or is my database just not "good enough" !?

I am using the extension blocker, does this have an effect on the efficiency og the Bayesian filter ?

Regards,

Allan

I too have reached the point where Bayes has kicked in and it appears majority of Bayes inspected emails are either 0% or 100%. It seems hard to believe that any message would have 0% since some tokens would have to be common in spam or non-spam.

I have another anti-spam system behind Spamfilter (Mdaemon) and it shows a lot of stuff getting through and its Bayes filter is catching them. I was hoping that Spamfilter would replace Mdaemon but now I'm not so sure.

Am I just being impatient? Is there a 'Best Practices' document to implementing the Bayes in Spamfilter?

I used MAPS, Keywords, and blocked attachments to feed the Bayes through the quarantine database. I can't see keeping these going to the quarantine db once the Bayes has been initially trained.

Are others seeing different results?

Thanks!
Andy

I am really unclear as to how much use the Bayesian filtering can be at this point if there is still no feature to be able to submit spam that has passed through unfiltered, back into the corpus.  As it stands now it appears the Bayesian is only good for filtering spam that is similar to spam that had already been caught by other existing Spamfilter filtering already.  It appears it has no way to learn any more than what your exisitng filters already do for you.

Users need a way to manually submit unfiltered email as spam.  Without that feature it seems the corpus will never amount to much beyond what your other filters do already.

And seeing that Spamfilter still does not scan the full headers, you are still losing out on another big advantage that Bayesian would offer you.

A recent networking trade journal (was it Network World?  I forget off the top of my head) had an article on Bayesian filtering and they agreed that the BEST Baysesian filters scanned the full headers also.  It would sure be nice if Spamfilter could also.

Please see http://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/showmessage.asp?messageID=3121" CLASS="ASPForums" TITLE="WARNING: URL created by poster. ‘Open message: ‘Notes about the Bayesian statistical filtering’’ - Notes about the Bayesian statistical filtering

Roberto F.
LogSat Software

Please see http://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/showmessage.asp?messageID=3121" CLASS="ASPForums" TITLE="WARNING: URL created by poster. ‘Open message: ‘Notes about the Bayesian statistical filtering’’ - Notes about the Bayesian statistical filtering

Roberto F.
LogSat Software

Please see http://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/showmessage.asp?messageID=3121" CLASS="ASPForums" TITLE="WARNING: URL created by poster. ‘Open message: ‘Notes about the Bayesian statistical filtering’’ - Notes about the Bayesian statistical filtering

Roberto F.
LogSat Software

Any suggestions on how to deal with spam that was not learned by Bayes during training and is now showing up as 0%.

I had been using Mdaemon 6.8.5 (with Bayes) for months prior to buying SpamFilter and now am using it behind SpamFilter. I see a LOT of spam in MDaemon which I hoped would have been caught by Spamfilter and when I compare the date/time and to/from  in the msgs  to whats in the SpamFilter log I see that SF tagged those particular msgs as 0%, That means the corpus will always see that spam as being OK. What hope is there of changing the corpus to make it think its something other than 0%?

Thanks!
Andy

===
Users need a way to manually submit unfiltered email as spam.  Without that feature it seems the corpus will never amount to much beyond what your other filters do already.
===

I agree...     Too many things are getting by the Bayesian Filter for me...