On 15/05/2010 4:31 PM, John Hardin wrote: > On Fri, 14 May 2010, John Hardin wrote: > >> On Mon, 10 May 2010, 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. >> >> It looks like the current ruleqa ham corpus is ~127k. > > Sorry, that should be the _spam_ corpus. 129925 as of the latest run. > The ham corpus is nearly 260k.
My net enabled check was successful this week, so an update got published last night. Stats for usable net-checked (set 1) messages: HAM: 173841 (150000 required) SPAM: 1050099 (150000 required) For Friday's non-net-checked (set 0) messages: HAM: 186535 (150000 required) SPAM: 1053687 (150000 required) Only ham that is 39 months old or less is used. Only spam that is 3 months old or less is used. >> Is your NFS server still down? I note the "dos" corpus has been >> missing for a while now... I had an old mass-check server running through a million messages at about 50/min on a single ancient proc that was tying up the socket and preventing my nightly mass-checks from running. I killed it earlier this week. Daryl
