https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6155
--- Comment #121 from Warren Togami <[email protected]> 2009-10-20 19:00:36 UTC --- (In reply to comment #120) > I agree that RCVD_VIA_APNIC is a prejudiced rule, and my channels have had it > rated 0.001 ever since you called me out on it (RCVD_VIA_APNIC accidentally OK glad to hear that you reduced it. I didn't look at your scores after that first time. You should really get a spamassassin account so your rules can be more thoroughly tested against a more varied corpa. > nobody has yet pointed me to.) (Side note: I see __RCVD_VIA_APNIC is already > in your own sandbox, hitting 86% of all Japanese ham.) Yes, I'm using it as a softener to exclude from the extremely prejudiced CN_<NUMBER> rules. It just so happens that the majority of CN_<NUMBER> spam comes from !APNIC, and APNIC is prejudiced in exactly the way to make CN_<NUMBER> rules less dangerous. Even though those rules have high spam hit rates and zero FP's across our nightly masscheck corpa, it is still too prejudiced to be safe as a default rule. > SA at its core is merely a system of probabilities. Even without bayes, the > masscheck mechanism and its points are awarded based on statistical > significance. Very few rules are actually free of FPs (or FNs for negative > rules). My question still stands: what does SA deem statistically > significant > when it comes to FPs? Why does RDNS_NONE need to be immutable rather than > dictated by the masscheck results? What would the automated system score > RDNS_NONE if it were allowed to? I'm guessing something between 0.2 and 0.7. That is an interesting question. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
