>-----Original Message----- >From: Robert Menschel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 9:51 AM >To: Pierre Thomson >Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org >Subject: Re: Unreasonable penalty for AOL addresses ending in numbers? > > >Hello Pierre, > >Wednesday, September 8, 2004, 5:38:40 AM, you wrote: > >PT> I have had a couple of FP's recently from valid AOL users. AOL >PT> recommends appending digits to your screen name to make it unique, >PT> and many users do that. The result (sender using AOL 9.0 >client, SA >PT> 2.63) is a penalty of 6.39 points right off the bat. Isn't that a >PT> bit extreme? > >"Extreme" depends on the receiving system. Apparently yes, on your >system, and would be on mine, except here we use: > >required_hits 9 >score ADDR_NUMS_AT_BIGSITE 0.194 # 305s/156h of 112471 >corpus (92494s/19977h) 03/16/04 >score FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS 0.10 # Reduced 6/23,03, >11/21/03, 2/1/04. 4793s/1122h of 81370 corpus >score FROM_WEBMAIL_END_NUMS6 0.167 # 2.61 defaults halved >1/6/04 due to FP, reduced again 2/21/04 - 294s/175h of 100793 >corpus (82099s/18694h) 02/21/04 > >Looking ahead to SA version 3, I see that the new distribution >scores will be >score ADDR_NUMS_AT_BIGSITE 0.072 0.748 0.112 0.081 >score FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS 0.177 0.516 0.517 0.000 >score FROM_WEBMAIL_END_NUMS6 0.178 0.046 0.389 0.000 >so yes, the problem goes away with the next release, where the maximum >score for these three rules will be 1.3 > >Bob Menschel >
I agree with Bob's findings. (When don't I?) I have lowered the FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS as well. Too many FPs. There are so many other good rules to catch these guys, and too many FPs created by this rule. Hopefully it will be fixed in 3.0. --Chris
