http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3821
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-27 14:16 ------- 'I like your idea concerning "harder to defeat" rules. I'd also suggest a classification of "more likely to be correct", which would include - obfuscation rules with ultra high confidence ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - spam headers (X_MESSAGE_INFO) - known forgeries (FAKE_OUTBLAZE_RCVD) - broken ratware (subject =~ /%RAND/) Perhaps such rules can be flagged via tflags or similar mechanism, such that the automatic scoring mechanism will apply preferential treatment to them, provided that the scoring mass-checks hit no ham at all (or no spam if a negative scoring rule).' BTW, this is the "rule reliability tflag" idea again; basically provide a way to hint that this rule is reliable, and this rule should not be considered reliable -- no matter what their hit-rates in mass-checks were. I agree it may have good effects as a hint to the Perceptron, so it may now be time to do this. what d'you think, Henry? ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
