http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3821
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-09-27 14:58 ------- Subject: Re: scores are overoptimized for training set This sounds like a reasonable approach. I can't help out with it at the moment, though. My thesis needs to be finished in 7 weeks. Henry >------- 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. > > ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
