http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5376
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-03 08:43 ------- (In reply to comment #3) > I think our current "generate scores once a millenia" method is not really > functional for several reasons, but mainly that it takes too long between > updates and the scores are overly tuned for our messages and not necessarily > what other people see (despite having 42 rsync accounts, we have few (8 (but > really more like 6.5) at current count) people doing nightly runs, and I'm > ~50% > of the total results). > > Also, the last thing I saw about the perceptron, and why it didn't work for > 3.2, > was that it needed more diverse data to score with. Perhaps we just need > better > rules? well, the GA did pretty well, so we came to the conclusion that the data was ok -- just not the kind of data the perceptron's gradient-descent algorithm did well with. > Anyway, coming up with a new scoring algorithm isn't bad, I just don't think > it's going to make a lot of difference without other changes as well, such as > more frequent runs, more corpus runs/results from the masses, and/or a way for > individual locations to easily update their own scores. sure. The benefit of this, however, is that we can define the problem and then *other people* will do it for us ;) Michael, good point. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
