http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-13 15:34 ---
FWIW, ALL_TRUSTED is in a gen:mutable section, but immutable by
score-ranges-for-freqs due to tflags userconf.
--- You are receiving this mail
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 07:02 ---
(also, updated /home/corpus-rsync/ARCHIVE/3.2.0/rescore-logs-bug5270.tgz .)
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-24 13:07 ---
I think I've fixed the low-scoring rule gets 1.0 default score bug now.
Also note a new issue from bug 5110 -- EXTRA_MPART_TYPE was given too
high a score.
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-22 08:00 ---
another possible issue. Was ALL_TRUSTED supposed to be mutable?
ifplugin Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::RelayEval
# gen:mutable
score ALL_TRUSTED -1.360
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-22 08:13 ---
false alarm; looks like it's always been mutable! (not that I'm sure that's a
good idea, but it'd be a separate issue. ;)
--- You are receiving this
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-21 05:02 ---
(In reply to comment #23)
Finally, I'll add tflags publish to the published rules from rulesrc as
noted
in comment 20.
ok, I've now done this. It seems
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-21 08:26 ---
as follow-up to my [EMAIL PROTECTED], up'ing to r510010, after a,
make distclean
full rebuild,
make test
now reports,
All tests
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-21 12:01 ---
annoyingly, the basic FP/FN rate when I run fp-fn-statistics *now* for set 3 is
0.1% higher in FNs than when I ran it during the score generation :(
need
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 05:16 ---
assuming there's no other negative comments, and I get a chance, I'll trying
fixing those RCVD_IN_DNSWL scores asap to match what Matthias suggested. (If
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-20 05:20 ---
Finally, I'll add tflags publish to the published rules from rulesrc as
noted
in comment 20.
actually, maybe it makes more sense to just cut those
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-18 03:25 ---
Created an attachment (id=3868)
-- (http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=3868action=view)
new scores
Here's a copy of the new scores
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-17 10:11 ---
GA results for set 3:
# SUMMARY for threshold 5.0:
# Correctly non-spam: 67494 99.92%
# Correctly spam: 117606 98.76%
# False positives:56
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-17 12:20 ---
(In reply to comment #20)
please take a look at 50_scores.cf and see if you can spot any
issues.
Regarding the RCVD_IN_DNSWL_* rules (disclaimer: I'm
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 04:22 ---
ok, set 0 scores now in:
# SUMMARY for threshold 5.0:
# Correctly non-spam: 66964 99.13%
# Correctly spam: 110426 92.73%
# False positives: 586
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-16 17:35 ---
GA results for set 1:
# SUMMARY for threshold 5.0:
# Correctly non-spam: 67347 99.70%
# Correctly spam: 114907 96.49%
# False positives: 203
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-15 02:54 ---
yay for the GA! I resurrected craig-evolve.c and ran it -- here's the test
results from its run:
# SUMMARY for threshold 5.0:
# Correctly non-spam: 67498
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-15 04:01 ---
for the record; the FP/FN test results from the set 1 perceptron run were:
Correctly non-spam: 539494 99.74%
Correctly spam: 914430 95.90%
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
---
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-14 09:15 ---
Created an attachment (id=3864)
-- (http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=3864action=view)
freqs
HELO_LOCALHOST, a bit of a surprise
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 12:56 ---
so I went back and forth with Henry about this; he suggested tweaking the -l
parameter to 0.2 and lower, but that didn't really help.
however, I edited
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 15:08 ---
It would be interesting to know if this 30% FN rate equates to image spams at
all closely. I haven't been running without net tests in a while, but I think
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 15:28 ---
btw, it's definitely not that the results are poor for scoreset 2 in general.
for example, the pre result looks like this:
SUMMARY for threshold 5.0:
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 15:33 ---
I also wonder if perhaps we need to do some more corpus cleaning and verifying
that we're not doing gigo.
--- You are receiving this mail because:
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-12 09:31 ---
ok, scores for scoreset 3 are checked in... they seem pretty good:
gen-set3-2.0-5.0-100/test --
# SUMMARY for threshold 5.0:
# Correctly non-spam: 67518
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-12 09:43 ---
aha, I've figured it out. bug in the masses scripts (again)
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assignee for the bug, or are
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-12 11:10 ---
well, it wasn't just that. still seems broken; a really good rule like
RCVD_FORGED_WROTE gets a score of 0. I've fixed the bugs that had marked those
rules
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-12 11:46 ---
Are there false negatives with RCVD_FORGED_WROTE in it? I suppose it's plausible
(though unlikely) that it get a score of 0 if its simply unnecessary for
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-12 12:05 ---
fwiw, I think I still had some stuff cached; I svn reverted
../rules/50_scores.cf, rm -rf tmp gen-cache, and re-ran bash ./runGA, and the
results (for
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
Bug 5270 depends on bug 5271, which changed state.
Bug 5271 Summary: ImageInfo.pm - include in 3.2.0?
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5271
What|Old Value |New Value
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
Bug 5270 depends on bug 5285, which changed state.
Bug 5285 Summary: remove NJABL DUL rule in favour of PBL
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5285
What|Old Value |New Value
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
Bug 5270 depends on bug 5285, which changed state.
Bug 5285 Summary: remove NJABL DUL rule in favour of PBL
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5285
What|Old Value |New Value
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
Bug 5270 depends on bug 5285, which changed state.
Bug 5285 Summary: remove NJABL DUL rule in favour of PBL
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5285
What|Old Value |New Value
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn|4332|
--- You are
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-10 12:04 ---
I just ran a quick experiment on the zone over the past day, to see what
perceptron tweaks work well on a 10% slice of last week's set1 logs, by
searching
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn||5284
--- You are
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn||5285
--- You are
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
Bug 5270 depends on bug 4687, which changed state.
Bug 4687 Summary: MIME_BASE64_TEXT will fire on an out-of-box Outlook install
on Traditional Chinese WinXP
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4687
What
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
Bug 5270 depends on bug 5284, which changed state.
Bug 5284 Summary: MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART has bad performance
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5284
What|Old Value |New Value
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn||4687
--- You are
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn||5271
--- You are
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn||4332
--- You are
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
---
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||5110
nThis|
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5270
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|Undefined |3.2.0
--- You are
49 matches
Mail list logo
