Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat: classify emails by importance based on subjects #10277

Open
wants to merge 37 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

st3iny
Copy link
Member

@st3iny st3iny commented Oct 17, 2024

Partly addresses #3968

Closes #8257

Part 5: The great rebasing ...

Improvements

  • Classify emails by importance using a new and improved classification pipeline
  • Persist classifier models (and transformer pipelines) in memory cache only
  • Drop the oc_mail_classifiers table

How to tests?

  1. Have some important mails in your inbox.
  2. Make sure to have the classification enabled: Account settings modal -> "Data collection consent" ✅ and "Mark as important" ✅
  3. Train a model: occ mail:account:train -vvv <account-id> (extract account id with occ mail:account:export <user-id>)
  4. Receive some mails and observe that some are marked as important and some aren't.

@st3iny

This comment was marked as resolved.

st3iny and others added 26 commits October 22, 2024 13:52
@st3iny st3iny force-pushed the enh/noid/classification-based-on-subject-V branch from ebbed72 to 21d45eb Compare October 22, 2024 11:53
@st3iny st3iny added 3. to review feature:priority inbox Features and bugs related to the "priority inbox" feature and removed 2. developing labels Oct 22, 2024
@st3iny st3iny marked this pull request as ready for review October 22, 2024 17:47
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
3. to review enhancement feature:priority inbox Features and bugs related to the "priority inbox" feature
Projects
Status: 🏗️ In progress
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants