Re: no filtering without ham
David Relson <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.bogofilter.general |
|---|---|
| Organization | Osage Software Systems, Inc. |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 13:47:30 +0100 Sven Burmeister wrote: > Hello everybody! > > I use bogofilter with kmail and it works very well. However there is > an issue that comes up quite frequently with people who start using > kmail+bogofilter for the first time. > > The issue is that bogofilter seems to only start marking as spam > after the user has marked some emails as ham. > > >From the questions I answered for new users, their workflow is > >something like > this: > > - Use kmail's anti-spam wizard to set-up filters. This means that > spam will be moved into some other folder than the inbox. > - Wait for spam and mark it as such to train bogofilter. > > They do not mark emails as ham, because there is no need to, since > they were not moved into the spam folder, i.e. for them, as long as > it is not falsely marked as spam, there is no need to tell bogofilter > that it did something wrong. > > As a result, bogofilter never starts to sort out spam emails, no > matter how long they train it by marking spam emails. Hence for them > bogofilter+kmail do not work. > > There are several ways to work around this issue. > > - Kmail could pipe some bogus mails through bogofilter as ham, to > feed the wordlist. > - Kmail could mark all incoming mails as ham > - Kmail could display a message when setting up filters that tell the > user to mark emails as spam and ham, since otherwise bogofilter will > not work. > - bogofilter could start working after it was trained with spam > emails only and get the ham stats after that, when users mark false > positives. > > Before I talk to the kmail devs, are you aware of this issue and what > "solution" would you prefer? Maybe you have an even better approach, > so feel free to comment and add. > > Sven Hello Sven, "No filtering without ham" is exactly right! A bayesian filter's job is distinguishing "good" from "bad" and it does this by comparing a new message to what it has been told "good" and "bad" mean. Without knowledge of _both_ good and bad, it cannot do its job. Your strategies are, generally, reasonable. I don't like the "pipe bogus mail" strategy, but the others are fine -- assuming the user is informed of the need to deal with classification errors -- of which there will be plenty until bogofilter has a reasonable wordlist. Regards, David _______________________________________________ Bogofilter mailing list [email protected] http://www.bogofilter.org/mailman/listinfo/bogofilter