[Rspamd-Users] Bayes learning question.

[Vsevolod Stakhov]

On 22/11/2019 09:18, Daniel, Sebastian wrote:
> Why outdated? It's seems to work well at my configuration.
> 
> And nobody knows, that's outdated, because only 3-4 people knows about a new shematic - in the most cases, the people, who was worked or report on a issue @ github.
> Sorry, rspamd's docs and help @ the web is always old and outdated. This isn't helpful for users and the interest in rspamd  disappears very quickly.
> I think, if you see my config, you will cry about the "old style". But it's depends on your bad docs...
> 
> So, in wich correct format should i use your Sample? I think, if i copied  --->  #  spam_threshold = 6.0; # When to learn spam (score >= threshold)  #  ham_threshold = -0.5; # When to learn ham (score <= threshold)  #  check_balance = true; # Check spam and ham balance  #  min_balance = 0.9; # Keep diff for spam/ham learns for at least this value  #} <-----    i will get a syntax error at the config... 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Users <users-bounces at lists.rspamd.com> Im Auftrag von Vsevolod Stakhov
> Gesendet: Freitag, 22. November 2019 10:03
> An: users at lists.rspamd.com
> Betreff: Re: [Rspamd-Users] Bayes learning question.
> 
> On 22/11/2019 08:40, Daniel, Sebastian wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> this depends on your Configuration....
>> Show us your Bayes Config...  or  as descriped here: https://rspamd.com/doc/configuration/statistic.html :
>>
>>
>> From version 1.1, Rspamd supports autolearning for statfiles. Autolearning is applied after all rules are processed (including statistics) if and only if the same symbol has not been inserted. E.g. a message won't be learned as spam if BAYES_SPAM is already in the results of checking.
>>
>> There are 3 possibilities to specify autolearning:
>>
>> autolearn = true: autolearning is performing as spam if a message has 
>> reject action and as ham if a message has negative score autolearn = 
>> [-5, 5]: autolearn as ham if score is less -5 and as spam if score is 
>> more than 5 autolearn = "return function(task) ... end": use the following Lua function to detect if autolearn is needed (function should return 'ham' if learn as ham is needed and string 'spam' if learn as spam is needed, if no learn is needed then a function can return anything including nil) Redis backend is highly recommended for autolearning purposes since it's the only backend with high concurrency level when multiple writers are properly synchronized.
> 
> This is outdated and this usage is highly discouraged. The default configuration specifies the correct ways to do it:
> 
> ```
> learn_condition = 'return require("lua_bayes_learn").can_learn';
> 
>  # Autolearn sample
>  # autolearn {
>  #  spam_threshold = 6.0; # When to learn spam (score >= threshold)  #  ham_threshold = -0.5; # When to learn ham (score <= threshold)  #  check_balance = true; # Check spam and ham balance  #  min_balance = 0.9; # Keep diff for spam/ham learns for at least this value  #} ```
> 
> In general, it is enough to set something like:
> 
> ```
> autolearn {}
> ```
> 
> in `local.d/classifier-bayes.conf` to enable the modern way to perform autolearning.
> 
> I will update docs at some point (maybe)...
> --
> Users mailing list
> Users at lists.rspamd.com
> https://lists.rspamd.com/mailman/listinfo/users
> 

Please stop top posting - it is so annoying when everybody uses their
own quoting/posting style. And there is a **simple** rule here, in this
mailing list: no bloody top posting.

Never, nie, nunca, jamais!

WRT docs. After reading your post I was under impression that you
actually pay my wages for writing the documentation. This is wrong,
nobody does that!

So the grim reality is that I'm updating documentation merely when I
have a good mood and intention to do it. Posts like yours one only
discourage myself from doing good things to users who receive my work
for free and just complain endlessly instead of helping to maintain the
project. All documentation is open for changing in contributions but it
is way easier to blame somebody than to send an edit suggestion...