RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Scaling Up The Declude Weighting System

[Bill]

Title: Message

This is the weighting that I use:   Hold Weight = 10 Delete Weight = 20   9:     SNIFFER2   8:     BADHEADERS   7:     BLITZEDALL     SBL     SPAMCOP      COMMENTS   6:     SPAM-DOMAINS     AHBL     DSBL   5:     ORDB     SORBS-HTTP     SORBS-SOCKS     SORBS-MISC     SORBS-SMTP      SORBS-SPAM     SORBS-WEB      SORBS-ZOMBIE     SORBS-DUHL    4:     MAILFROM     CBL     BASE64     REVDNS     ROUTING     SPFFAIL   3:     DSN     HOUR (12AM - 6AM)     SPAMHEADERS   2:     NOABUSE      NOPOSTMASTER    -5     BONDEDSENDER     SPFPASS     For filters, I normally will use a 9 unless it is a new one that I am testing.    I end up with a hold percentage of about 93% and a delete of about 89%.       -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Geiser Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 9:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Scaling Up The Declude Weighting System Hello, All, Over the year or so that I've been reading the discussions on this list it seems I've read quite a bit about people scaling their weights up, i.e. instead of having a HOLD weight of 10, you might have a HOLD weight of 100 and then you adjust the corresponding test weights accordingly.  Assuming that what I've read is correct, for those who uses this scaled up system...   What sort of benefit is is that you feel that you receive from doing this?  Does it allow a more granular tuning of your weighting system?  Are there any other benefits I'm not thinking of?  Does having a hold weight of 100, for example, help you think more clearly about each test being a percentage of the overall HOLD weight?   I'm doing a major overhaul of Declude JunkMail configuration and I figured if a scaled up weight system is the best way to do things then I might want to implement that now.   Thanks In Advance For Your Comments!   Dan Geiser [EMAIL PROTECTED]