http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2419
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-05-06 13:03 -------
I wonder if those ranges will work for everyone. I'm using chi^2
combining and I find that it's the rare ham message that exceeds a
Bayes score of 0.5. Here are my hand-tweaked scores around the center
(a union of the old and new rules):
score BAYES_25 -0.1
score BAYES_30 0.1
score BAYES_40 0.1
score BAYES_44 0.1
score BAYES_50 4
score BAYES_56 4.5
score BAYES_60 4.5
score BAYES_70 4.9
score BAYES_75 4.9
score BAYES_80 4.9
score BAYES_90 5.0
Based on the nightly rule results, my Bayes scores look something like
jm's, so I'm not the only one. (I don't know which combining rule was
used by jm.)
To accommodate those who rarely get ham scoring >= 0.5 it might be
better to at least split the rules at 0.5, perhaps [0.4,0.5) and
[0.5,0.6). (IIRC the evals only allow ranges like (0.4,0.5], which is
not quite as good.)
Users could have lines such as
body BAYES_44 eval:check_bayes('0.44', '0.49999999999')
in their preferences file, but that should not be necessary for what
might be a common preference.
Also, it would be better if the rules were named consistently, say
using the lower end of the range for the number (BAYES_01 instead of
BAYES_05 for check_bayes('0.01', '0.05')).
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
