I just want to say thanks for this explanation. Much more clear than the
README. I really feel like I get the point of all the syntax now.
And just in case there was some misunderstanding; I've got no issues with the
merged group as its implemented, its just not quite what I need.
Thanks,
Ed
Stevan Bajić wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:48:41 -0400
> Ed Szynaka <szyn...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes that's how the README lists it as well. The only reason I tried the
>> variations was to attempt to get the debug to let me know the user would
>> also
>> check the group. I attempted the group name as the same as the corpus
>> username
>> to see if it worked similar to merged groups.
>>
> Merged and shared groups use the groupname for internal processing.
> Classification groups don't do anything with the group name.
>
>
>> Mostly I tried the variations because the syntax for merged groups makes
>> more
>> sense to me.
>>
> In merged groups that makes sense. Right. In a global group it is completely
> different. Let me explain:
> groupname:grouptype:groupmember
>
> groupname is the name of the group
>
> grouptype is either "merged","shared","shared,managed","inoculation" or
> "classification"
>
> groupmember is a list of members separated by ","
>
> for classification group (aka: "classification") you can turn the group into
> a global group by using a "*" prefixed member name. Doing that transforms the
> classification group (aka: classification network) into a global group.
>
> A normal classification group lists members in the memberlist AND you have to
> be one of them to be part of that classification network.
>
> A global group is active FOR ALL users of the system and the member(s) ("*"
> prefixed) in the memberlist is/are used when a user has less than 1000
> innocent messages or 250 spam messages AND the message is either SPAM or HAM
> and the confidence is below 65% (aka: 0.65). Then DSPAM will consult the
> global group members and query their data to get an score.
>
>
>> I'm still not quite sure what the reasoning (if any) there is
>> behind the Global Group name.
>>
> It is almost like an merged group but only kicking in under certain
> conditions.
>
>
>> And the merged group syntax appears to allow for
>> adding some users to the group where the Global Groups syntax only allows
>> adding
>> all users to the group.
>>
> Yes. That is. GLOBAL = for ALL.
>
>
>> Any help would be greatly appreciated. Merged groups do appear to be doing
>> an
>> okay job but are less than ideal solution.
>>
> Why? Can you explain what you find not so good about merged groups?
>
>
>> I'll probably be working on doing a
>> second check against the corpus user instead of using the merged group today
>> since it'll allow me to implement the low confidence corpus check instead of
>> always merging in the corpus data.
>>
> Aha. I see.
>
>
>> Again thanks for taking a look at this,
>>
> Well... it was anyway time to look at it and try to fix that broken thing.
>
>
>> Ed
>>
--
Ed Szynaka
Network/Systems Manager
LocalNet Corp./CoreComm Internet Services
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Dspam-user mailing list
Dspam-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dspam-user
