Re: high scores on HDRS_LCASE,MANY_HDRS_LCASE > FPs
On 07/04/2012 04:40 PM, John Hardin wrote: On Wed, 4 Jul 2012, Axb wrote: from last update's 72_scores.cf score HDRS_LCASE3.749 3.999 3.749 3.999 score MANY_HDRS_LCASE 1.251 1.004 1.251 1.004 Although John manually set low scores in the sandbox file, these are ignored (per design). They are _limits_. The generator should not exceed those scores. The newly limited scores may take a bit to show up in an update. I'll watch those scores closely. Fixed/forced scores should be set via 73_sandbox_manual_scores.cf and not in sanbox files They have comment: # observed in UCE 9/2009 As they are hitting lots of ham, can we please loose these. HDRS_LCASE_IMGONLY may be another candidate to be dropped. Alex, I don't recall if you're running masschecks; if you are, can you include such FPs in your ham corpus? The reason they're being scored so highly by the rescorer is they do perform well against the masscheck corpus. I am running masschecks but these hits I see on msgs (maillog) gatewayed thru $dayjob's boxes - not stuff stored locally. I understand, a lot of rules may perform well in masschecks but overall generic patterns should be dropped if we detect that real world traffic shows they're dangerous. Imo, we should be able to trust our traffic & judgement more than masscheck corpuses which may be highly biased. Axb
Re: high scores on HDRS_LCASE,MANY_HDRS_LCASE > FPs
On Wed, 4 Jul 2012, Axb wrote: from last update's 72_scores.cf score HDRS_LCASE3.749 3.999 3.749 3.999 score MANY_HDRS_LCASE 1.251 1.004 1.251 1.004 Although John manually set low scores in the sandbox file, these are ignored (per design). They are _limits_. The generator should not exceed those scores. The newly limited scores may take a bit to show up in an update. Fixed/forced scores should be set via 73_sandbox_manual_scores.cf and not in sanbox files They have comment: # observed in UCE 9/2009 As they are hitting lots of ham, can we please loose these. HDRS_LCASE_IMGONLY may be another candidate to be dropped. Alex, I don't recall if you're running masschecks; if you are, can you include such FPs in your ham corpus? The reason they're being scored so highly by the rescorer is they do perform well against the masscheck corpus. -- John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/ jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79 --- Ignorance is no excuse for a law. --- Today: the 236th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence
Re: [auto] bad sandbox rules report
On 07/04/2012 01:44 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote: Den 2012-07-04 10:44, Axb skrev: Could we agree to remove/disable "no hits at all" rules? no, spammers would start using this taktics after disable is there an minimum time for not hitting ?, or just not hitting last masscheck ? This would speed up masschecks quite a bit. oh fair :) (also, never hurts to do a cleanup) it does not take long if done daily, but if it done on each 365 day it takes 365 days, i know this from expirence :) Are you a commiter?
Re: [auto] bad sandbox rules report
Den 2012-07-04 10:44, Axb skrev: Could we agree to remove/disable "no hits at all" rules? no, spammers would start using this taktics after disable is there an minimum time for not hitting ?, or just not hitting last masscheck ? This would speed up masschecks quite a bit. oh fair :) (also, never hurts to do a cleanup) it does not take long if done daily, but if it done on each 365 day it takes 365 days, i know this from expirence :)
Re: [auto] bad sandbox rules report
Good day Commiters, Could we agree to remove/disable "no hits at all" rules? This would speed up masschecks quite a bit. (also, never hurts to do a cleanup) Thanks Axb
high scores on HDRS_LCASE,MANY_HDRS_LCASE > FPs
from last update's 72_scores.cf score HDRS_LCASE3.749 3.999 3.749 3.999 score MANY_HDRS_LCASE 1.251 1.004 1.251 1.004 Although John manually set low scores in the sandbox file, these are ignored (per design). Fixed/forced scores should be set via 73_sandbox_manual_scores.cf and not in sanbox files They have comment: # observed in UCE 9/2009 As they are hitting lots of ham, can we please loose these. HDRS_LCASE_IMGONLY may be another candidate to be dropped. Thanks Axb.
