PROTECTED]Subject:
[Declude.JunkMail] Scaling Up The Declude Weighting
System
Hello, All,
Over the year or so that I've been reading the
discussions on this list it seems I've read quite a bit about people scaling
their weights up, i.e. instead of having a HOLD weight of 10, you
I
think it's not possible to calculate the weight of an individual test strictly
from his catch/failure rate.
On http://www.zcom.it/spamtest/ you
can see what we generate from our daily logfiles.
In my opinion it's not enough to count wrong or right
results.
Theoretically there are 5 p
Guess we can't sing Monty Python songs then, can
we?
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: Matt
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Scaling Up The Declude Weighting
System
I call them false positives, big whoop. I
al Message -
From: "Dan Geiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Scaling Up The Declude Weighting System
Hi, Scott,
Thanks for the feedback. The more I thought about it after sending the
e-m
%) that
fail this particular test but are not spam.
Darin.
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Geiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Scaling Up The Declude Weighting System
Hi, Scott,
Than
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Geiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Scaling Up The Declude Weighting System
Hi, Scott,
Thanks for the feedback. The more I thought about it afte
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Scaling Up The Declude Weighting System
If a test false positived 37% of the time, I certainly wouldn't be weighing
it that high.
Scott Fisher
Director of IT
Farm Progress Companies
>>&
I did exactly this when we added SPAMCHK as a test last year. I
believe they recommended this range because spamchk would add a lot of
small weights and a 1-10 scale is too narrow. It also allows us to
create filters with words that are more common in non-spam, but more
likely to be spam in h
PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 4:25 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Scaling Up The Declude Weighting System
Dan,
We've choosen to scale up the weighting system exactly for the two reasons you've
mentioned below:
-more granularity
-absolute weight and percent
,
Dan Geiser
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From:
Markus Gufler
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 4:25
PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Scaling
Up The Declude Weighting System
Dan,
We've choosen to scale up the weight
he "inside" weights set
up for a Hold-on-20 weighting system.
Markus
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan
GeiserSent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 4:48 PMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Scaling Up
The Declude Weighti
Hello, All,
Over the year or so that I've been reading the
discussions on this list it seems I've read quite a bit about people scaling
their weights up, i.e. instead of having a HOLD weight of 10, you might have a
HOLD weight of 100 and then you adjust the corresponding test weights
accordi
12 matches
Mail list logo
