http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4031
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID |
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-12-15 03:22 -------
It is not a problem of "perceived" inconsistency. If the system was working I
would't care to check it. Catch rates are lower compared to 2.6 and there was
any change in false positives.
It could be a setup/install problem but... I wiped everything and reinstalled.
Then I fed the learning engine with fresh spam, ham, false
positives/negatives. Results are the same. 1.9 BAYES_99, 2.1 BAYES_95.
90% of false negative I had switching to 3.X could have been catch if score
was linear.
All false positives I've had in the past (last false positive is dated Sept.
2004) was marked spam cos the sender was in many SBL. Just 5% of these false
positives had a bayesian spam probability higher than 40%. 90% of this 5% were
alert messages sent in the same day by a server of mine for error.
These are rough estimates, I could do more precise analysis but I think
conclusions won't be qualitatively too much different.
I'm wondering if it is anything related to the environment (libraries, perl
version 5.8.0, compilation... whatever).
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
