SA Bugzilla – Bug 1413
Add ability to skip Learner when reporting spam
Last modified: 2003-01-24 02:22:35 UTC
When reporting the code always runs the message through the learner, it would be nice if there was a command line option that turned this off.
Subject: Re: [SAdev] New: Add ability to skip Learner On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 08:19:07AM -0800, bugzilla-daemon@hughes-family.org wrote: > When reporting the code always runs the message through the learner, it would be > nice if there was a command line option that turned this off. Is this somehow different from config option "auto_learn 0"?
It is in my mind. I'm specifically talking about when you report (and revoke if it gets added in). Unless I'm just missing it in the code, setting auto_learn to 0 won't keep this from happening, the code always runs through the learner for report. Now that I think about it, it might also be nice to be able to tell it to forget instead of learning it as spam or ham.
Subject: Re: [SAdev] Add ability to skip Learner On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 08:34:50AM -0800, bugzilla-daemon@hughes-family.org wrote: > It is in my mind. I'm specifically talking about when you report (and revoke if > it gets added in). Unless I'm just missing it in the code, setting auto_learn > to 0 won't keep this from happening, the code always runs through the learner > for report. Oh, for report, yes. If you report it as spam, you may as well learn as spam too. Although it looks like it does ignore Conf::use_bayes in the learn() function... :( Hmmm.
Subject: Re: [SAdev] Add ability to skip Learner when reporting spam On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 08:41:52AM -0800, bugzilla-daemon@hughes-family.org wrote: > Oh, for report, yes. If you report it as spam, you may as well learn > as spam too. Although it looks like it does ignore Conf::use_bayes in > the learn() function... :( Hmmm. I had to dig, the check is actually in there pre-learning though. So if you don't want to use bayes at all, just set "use_bayes 0". If you want to use bayes but not train on reporting ... Then you shouldn't be reporting IMNSHO. ;)
I agree, this doesn't make as much sense when thinking strictly about reporting. I may have let the revoke stuff I recently worked up cloud my thinking and a more concrete reason now eludes me. So, I'm going to close this now and perhaps I'll come up with a more solid reason in the future.