On 10/10/2011 01:28 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> Doing a not nice rule of (RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI && SPF_FAIL) might be fun,
> or putting !SPF_FAIL in the DNSWL rules. Ick... *every* hit for that
> is in the dos corpora, so probably not good to add. (Daryl, what did
> you do?)
khop-bl has a ver
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Axb wrote:
On 2011-10-11 19:30, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 10/10, Axb wrote:
> This is a bug in trunk's sa-update score procedure and has been
> reported to DOS.
> The scores aren't getting added to the relevant scores file so they
> get the default 1.0
Is this
On 2011-10-11 19:30, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 10/10, Axb wrote:
This is a bug in trunk's sa-update score procedure and has been
reported to DOS.
The scores aren't getting added to the relevant scores file so they
get the default 1.0
Is this in bugzilla so it can be tracked / not forgot
On 10/10, Axb wrote:
> This is a bug in trunk's sa-update score procedure and has been
> reported to DOS.
> The scores aren't getting added to the relevant scores file so they
> get the default 1.0
Is this in bugzilla so it can be tracked / not forgotten?
On 10/10, John Hardin wrote:
> What do y
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
The thing I found most interesting was good ADVANCE_FEE rules that aren't
mutable, with a score of 1. Why aren't these mutable? Looks like they
would do us more good if they were included in re-scoring.
What do you mean by "not mutable"? The
68% of ham-net-dos.log hits __UNUSABLE_MSGID (2nd highest is 10%, wt-en3):
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20111008-r1180336-n/__UNUSABLE_MSGID/detail
It would be nice to have a way to detect corpora that are an outlier on
rules like this.
--
"theres a lot more to life than chicks
none of it matt
On 2011-10-10 22:28, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
The thing I found most interesting was good ADVANCE_FEE rules that aren't
mutable, with a score of 1. Why aren't these mutable? Looks like they
would do us more good if they were included in re-scoring.
* 1.0 ADVANCE_FEE_3_NEW Appear
I wrote up a couple scripts to calculate the ratio of the percentage of
rule pair hits between false-negatives (missed spam) and correct-negatives
(correct non-spam), inspired by Marc Perkel's thread that doesn't actually
have anything to do with bayes.
The thing I found most interesting was good
