https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6247
--- Comment #44 from Justin Mason <[email protected]> 2009-12-13 13:42:14 UTC --- (In reply to comment #43) > Options: > 1) Is anyone else using these zones for lookups now? If not, could you please > change it so they are non-overlapping? > 2) Make SAFE one score, and CERTIFIED a smaller score. CERTIFIED always > triggers with safe, so CERTIFIED only adds a small number on top of SAFE to > reach the intended total weight. (1) is preferable imo, but (2) is acceptable. > The overlap analysis shows near 100% overlap with the old rules, but I'm not > sure we can trust those numbers. I'm not sure that ruleqa is behaving > properly > in the overlap analysis, as SAFE and CERTIFIED claim to be 100% overlapping in > both directions when this is clearly incorrect. ... on the spam corpora, where they do indeed have exactly the same hit-rate, and I can believe they are hitting exactly the same spams. However, these rules are intended to hit ham, and that's where they differ: overlap ham: 99% of T_RCVD_IN_RP_SAFE hits also hit HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI; 99% of HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI hits also hit T_RCVD_IN_RP_SAFE overlap ham: 100% of T_RCVD_IN_RP_CERTIFIED hits also hit RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED; 97% of RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED hits also hit T_RCVD_IN_RP_CERTIFIED overlap ham: 100% of T_RCVD_IN_RP_CERTIFIED hits also hit T_RCVD_IN_RP_SAFE; 17% of T_RCVD_IN_RP_SAFE hits also hit T_RCVD_IN_RP_CERTIFIED overlap ham: 99% of T_RCVD_IN_RP_CERTIFIED hits also hit HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI; 17% of HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI hits also hit T_RCVD_IN_RP_CERTIFIED that's useful (and imo credible) data. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
