https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6525
Justin Mason <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #29 from Justin Mason <[email protected]> 2010-12-30 05:33:40 UTC --- (In reply to comment #27) > OK, so it catches only 1%. What matters is whether that 1% is caught by any > other list or mechanism. If NOT, and if not falsing, then it should remain. > Even so, redundancy is NOT bad, especially when there's a failure. Zero hits > would be a different story. this is a very good point. The "traditional" way to evaluate rule effectiveness was as a percentage of spam flow, but that's not really relevant in SpamAssassin, since we already have a large ruleset which can match 80-90% of spam. When evaluating rules, determine how well they work against false positives (for DNSWL rules) or false negatives (for DNSBLs). if you like, include "borderline" correct diagnoses, e.g. for DNSBLs, spam mails that get 5-7 points as well. rules that fire only on spams that score over 10 points already are worthless to add (or keep). -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
