-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Daniel Quinlan writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Justin Mason) writes: > > > Yes, I agree -- this is the problem with older ham. (esp. the SPF > > problem. SPF is very brittle on this point.) > > > > How's about putting stricter limits on the net check corpora? > > Well, do we really want to use an extra 6 months on only one of the > runs? I think it would be better to use more or less the same data. OK, good point. (I'm not too pushed on this point.) > > I would suggest though that Malte's point is also valid -- some "special > > case" reported FP mails should be kept in the ham corpus, if they really > > are special cases that the submitter is worried about. > > Yes, I *am* keeping my non-SpamAssassin-list spam-related mail in the > corpus. The main reason to remove the SpamAssassin list mail is that > we'll totally bias the corpus; I'm sure we'll have more than enough FPs > for iffy rules by virtue of our everyday mail. Hmm, I'm not talking about spam-related mail. I'm talking about FPs; in particular, unusual collections of mails that are FPs, or may have FP'd in the past. > > And the ham? I'm +1 on keeping ham bounces. > > Agreed, I am keeping ham bounces. good, that's 2 of us then ;) - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFA2f1AQTcbUG5Y7woRAp1tAKCQryY7o/DbdX+dC8ivgzALM2EeYwCfYBSK 2BtIgdU/jt6BWgCO8/ICc1c= =X7Li -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
