Daryl C. W. O'Shea writes: > Justin Mason wrote: > > Maybe we should simply not publish a new active.list or rule updates after > > a weekly -net mass-check -- it always seems to have significantly > > different freqs, probably due to smaller amounts of mail being checked. > > Hmm... that might be it. This one just caught my eye as it happened to > remove all of the new rules and a lot more other rules than normal for a > -net mass-check. I just find it odd that *all* of the new rules were > removed this time using the same submitters as the previous week.
I wonder if that indicates that old mail is being mass-checked? Some of the corpora are very out of date -- we should probably change the backend to be more stringent about measuring rates against only the freshest spam... > In any case, yeah, we need to introduce some dampening in the rule > promotion/demotion to prevent rule bounce. I've got a few loose ideas > on how to do it, not sure when I'll have time to look into it though. +1. anything you come up with will probably be better than what we have now, ie. nothing ;) --j.
