On Tuesday, November 8, 2005, 10:19:20 AM, Darrell wrote: Dsic> I too have had to submit a lot more false positives lately. I also second Dsic> that false positive processing seems to be a lot slower than previously.
We have introduced a number of new rule coding procedures (and people) as well as a number of new spamtraps and usertraps. These (collectively) can contribute to new FPs in a number of obvious and not-so-obvious ways. New people and procedures require some shake-out time. New spamtraps can re-introduce content that awakens old rules which may no-longer be valid. I've seen a mix of both cases recently. FP processing has been slower and faster, depending upon the day. I apologize for this personally since I'm the primary FP person... I'm also the primary developer and maintainer of the systems... so the explanation follows: I have been a bit overloaded lately working on improvements to the system, training, support, and R&D work to apply to upcoming versions. On occasion this has prevented me from keeping the schedule I would like w/ regard to FP processing. All of that said, the general trend of the rate of FP reports (today not withstanding) has been downward or flat. I expect the rate of false positives to decrease slowly over time as our new folks gain experience and we develop more powerful tools to help them. I will work harder to maintain a more regular schedule on FP processing while still pushing development and support work forward. Thanks, _M This E-Mail came from the Message Sniffer mailing list. For information and (un)subscription instructions go to http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Help/Help.html
