Doc Schneider writes: > Justin Mason wrote: > > If it did take overlap into account, I'd be curious. I thought it > > didn't... > > > > Loren Wilton writes: > >> Bob had a technique that worked reasonably well, and only required some > >> minor human thought to usually come up with good numbers. I'm pretty sure > >> that it took overlap into account. (Although the overlap runs may have > >> been > >> something he did manually, I don't recall.) > >> > >> He seems to be gone to other places now, but I'm pretty sure he left a > >> description of how his masscheck and score generation worked someplace > >> around here, probably in the archives of the newsgroup. > >> > >> I think it would be worth looking into, since it didn't require much more > >> than some slightly modified masscheck tools, as best I recall. > > I have all the notes on how he (Bob) did his scoring. I can forward > these on to you Justin if you want.
that'd be great, thanks Doc! > I even wrote a small script where you add the ham and spam totals into > it and it then spits out a fairly good score. This was written using > Bob's scoring algorythm(sic -- I need more coffee). > > His mass-checker script does have an option for --overlap which we in > SARE do use to check for overlaps for our own rules and also the SA rules. > > Let me know and I'll share all of this with you. 8*) cheers ;) --j.
