On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 22/02/2010 3:18 PM, John Hardin wrote:
Could someone provide (or point to in the source) the criteria used for
the masscheck making the T_ or not to T_ decision?
AFAIK the logic is buried somewhere in the ruleqa app.
build/mkupdates/listpromotable that created the active.list file just
gets the info from the ruleqa app.
Why is this being made a T_ rule?
SPAM%
HAM%
S/O RANK SCORE NAME 2.5767 3552 of 137851 messages
0.0748 138 of 184506 messages
0.972 0.77 0.01 T_FROM_MISSPACED
The S/O is pretty good. It's better than this rule that's not being made
T_:
1.3827 1906 of 137851 messages
0.0607 112 of 184506 messages
0.958 0.74 1.00 FORM_FRAUD
Why?
What revision are these stats based on? Are both stats from the same
revision?
They are both from nightly 20100221-r912319-n:
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20100221-r912319-n?srcpath=jhardin
20100222-r912513-n:
MSECS SPAM% HAM% S/O RANK SCORE NAME WHO/AGE
0 0.4503 0.1680 0.728 0.65 0.01 T_FROM_MISSPACED
0 0.2415 0.0537 0.818 0.70 0.01 T_FORM_FRAUD
I think both rules are getting bounced in and out due to the fluctuation
of who's been submitting results over the last week due to the bad rule
that got checked in (plus I don't currently submit Sunday night results
right now).
Yeah, there _is_ quite a bit of fluctuation.
Might it be a good idea to use a different prefix to indicate rules that
the automated systems have decided don't score well, to distinguish them
from rules that the developer has explicitly indicated are for test?
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
[email protected] FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a [email protected]
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
W-w-w-w-w-where did he learn to n-n-negotiate like that?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Today: George Washington's 278th Birthday
