If I don't take it into account when optimizing the scores, then the increased scores will cause more false positive errors.
Henry
Marc Perkel wrote:
I'm not sure you would have to take this into account - but it would be interesting to test the results. I would want just a couple of system settable commands like:
TwoHitFactor = 1.2 ThreeHitFactor = 1.3
If unset 1.0 is assumed.
Is this something that can be tested? I think it would be worth a try.
Henry Stern wrote:
I'd have to take this into account when optimising the scores. Then, since the scores would be optimised for multiple hits, spammers would only have to reduce the number of hits to evade SpamAssassin.
It's the same reason why we use a Bernoulli event model in Bayes.
Henry
Marc Perkel wrote:
This may be something that is too CPU intensive but maybe it could work.
I've always wanted to be able to see if a message triggered a rule several times and if so - had a higher score depending on the number of times the rule was triggered. Might even cap it at 3 times and do something like this.
One hit = Score Two hits = score * 1.20 three hits = score * 1.30
Any thoughts on this?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
