On 02/21/2011 10:06 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
I agree it would be wise to allow this to auto-promote, but given the
small size of our ham corpus and the fact that this pattern could rarely
but legitimately appear in non-spam, perhaps we should manually cap its
score to be on the safe side.
To throw out an arbitrary number I'd suggest 0.9 points?
Warren
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20110221-r1072884-n/T_URI_DEOBFU_INSTR/detail
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20110221-r1072884-n/URI_OBFU_TLD/detail
On second thought, examine the overlap of these rules. Nearly all such
cases are already caught by high scoring rules like PYZOR_CHECK or
SOUGHT. Given that both rules cannot be 100% correct and the fact that
they are numerically redundant, I advise caution in allowing these to be
auto-promoted and especially auto-scored.
Perhaps we are better off leaving easy to catch temporary campaign
patterns like these to tools better equipped to handle them like SOUGHT
or PYZOR.
Warren
