On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 20:55:55 +0200 Julien Valroff <jul...@kirya.net> wrote:
> Le lundi 09 août 2010 à 20:37 +0200, Stevan Bajić a écrit : > > On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 20:20:10 +0200 > > Julien Valroff <jul...@kirya.net> wrote: > > > > > Hi Stevan, > > > > > > Le lundi 09 août 2010 à 19:42 +0200, Stevan Bajić a écrit : > > > > On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 19:27:27 +0200 > > > > news...@acrocat.com wrote: > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > This seems weird to me. > > > > > > > > > DSPAM does not keep track of changed states of a signature. So if you > > > > retrain the status is changed but if you undo that training then DSPAM > > > > does not know that you previously have already trained that > > > > message/signature. > > > > > > Unless I am wrong, the WebUI could know that it handles an already > > > retrained message, > > > > > Yes. You are right. The WebUI knows about it. > > > > > > > and as the WebUI stats are independent from the > > > global statistics, it would make sense to change the way they are > > > displayed on the performance tab, what do you think? > > > > > John has introduced that "tweak -1" option into the WebUI that one can > > press if they undo something. > > I hadn't understood this option was meant to be used in such cases, > AFAIK, it is undocumented... > If I am not wrong then it is in the FAQ: Q. What is TWEAK -1? A. In the CGI, a button labeled "Tweak -1" exists. If you are anal about keeping accurate web stats as I am, you want to make sure that messages you forward in that are NOT spam don't get counted against the web stats. For example, I forward in virus-ridden emails and the occasional completely blank message - neither of which DSPAM is expected to catch. Clicking "Tweak -1" for each of these emails I send in corrects the web stats so as not to count them against DSPAM's accuracy. That's all it is! > If it works as expected, then, I agree it should be left as it is. > The only thing would be to improve the (almost) inexistant documentation > for the WebUI. > Well... no one seems to care about DSPAM. We miss developers, documenters, etc... > > I personally am avoiding to tweak any more on the WebUI. Mainly > > because over 18 months ago a lot of people have said that they will > > build a new WebUI (PHP based, etc) and and and... so I am for sure not > > now going to tweak any more something that anyway everyone and his dog > > wants to be replaced by a new WebUI. > > I know the story, this is unfortunate... > > > > > Obviously, the best way would be to make DSPAM track the changed states > > > of a signature... but that's another story ;) > > > > > Well.... what should I say? Keeping track of the state of a signature > > is fine and dandy but what do you do if someone is not using > > signatures but training the whole message? How do you keep track of > > that? > > Is that even possible? If so, I didn't know... > Yes. This is possible. I run mainly without signatures at all. > cheers, > Julien > > -- > Julien Valroff <jul...@kirya.net> > http://www.kirya.net > GPG key: 4096R/290D20C5 > 092F 4CB5 5F19 E006 1CFD B489 D32B 8D66 290D 20C5 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This SF.net email is sponsored by > > Make an app they can't live without > Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge > http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > Dspam-user mailing list > Dspam-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dspam-user ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Make an app they can't live without Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Dspam-user mailing list Dspam-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dspam-user
