Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote: >> I'd have to check the logs, but it could be that we're not meeting >> the minimum ham/spam results that are required to generate an update. >> I've got it set to a minimum of 150,000 ham and spam each.
>Yeah, since early April the ham results have fallen below the 150k message threshold to about 143k messages. >150k was already quite a bit lower than I was really comfortable with but I guess we could lower it if necessary. >Spam results for the weekly mass-check since May 1 are way under the 150k threshold at 50k and 35k. >This will block an update for the entire week. It looks like the "weekly" model is broken. Perhaps we should consider chaniging it? One possibility is a threshold-based one. Collect ham & spam until some threshold is exceeded, generate mass-check, promote rules, reset counters, repeat. On the other hand, spam mutates over time, so last week's data may not be relevant this week... Cheers, Phil Any opinion expressed in this e-mail or any attached files are those of the individual and not necessarily those of Herefordshire Council. You should be aware that Herefordshire Council monitors its email service. This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the addressee. This communication may contain material protected by law from being passed on. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this e-mail in error, you are advised that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of it.
