https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #19 from Warren Togami <[email protected]> 2009-08-26 18:11:50 PST --- > iirc, the risk is that a small set of corpora (e.g. a few people take a week > off) could cause the entire ruleset to be skewed incorrectly. This way at > least only the most recent (sandbox) rules would be affected, so it's a bit > safer. > It's also faster to generate the scores, but this isn't so much of an issue > now, as our main machine is quite beefy... > There may have been other reasons, too, but I can't find the mails :( I feel like we have too little diversity in the type and number of ham contributors. This rescoring would be a big improvement from our scores from two years ago and we definitely should do it. But after 3.3.0 I would like to learn how I can become more involved in order to revamp the score update process. * I'd like to learn how to operate the GA. * I want to continue recruiting other nightly masscheck participants. I want to recruit contributors of non-English languages and non-technical users. * I am thinking about writing a toolkit (in RPM and DEB packages) that would make it easier for participants to join masschecks. The current documented process is very unclear and confusing, and I want to clean this up as well. With more diversity in masscheck participants, perhaps we can do complete rescoring more often than 2 years. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
