https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6525
--- Comment #26 from AXB <[email protected]> 2010-12-29 15:10:33 UTC --- (In reply to comment #25) > > Btw the njabl rules use deep parsing, might be useful to test with > > lastexternal > > too. > > This is a good point, but we can't do an apples to apples comparison because > the existing rules are "reuse" and based on existing tagged mail. But we know > that this can only reduce the already tiny hit rate even further. > > > can we please close this "bug" as it's clearly not a bug. > > AXB, I have great respect for you, but I have to strongly disagree with you on > this. Even your own numbers in Comment #11 support my position. You may disagree. I agree that its has low hit rate, BUT its still valuable for the reasons previously mentioned which is why it should stay and you should put creative energy in something innovative & worthwile. > > Regarding FP's > > I have to go right now, I'll look deeper into this (if they are largely due to > deep parsing or not) when I get back. > > Meanwhile does anyone have any comment on the questions in Comment #20? > > I am willing to defer this if this is really an issue of "we don't make > changes > like this between major releases". Who mentioned a release or anything close to it? No need to defer. Bury it. NJABL is not going anywhere. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
