On 03/06/2018 12:54 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, RW wrote:

On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 08:47:35 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin wrote:

On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, David Jones wrote:

In this case these were really bad spam so the APOSTROPHE_TOCC is
just riding on the back of other rules, BLs, and high Bayes
scores.

What I generally look at is the detailed rule performance in
masscheck. If it primarily hits on spams that score in total 1-3
points.

Why not under 5?

If it's close to 5 and there's a limit that suggests the limit could be increased a bit.

It also needs to take into account the ham hits, which is why having a ham-starved corpus is such a problem.


Are you saying we have a ham-starved corpus?

                OVERALL  SPAM    HAM
ena-week0       77,945  36,459  41,486
ena-week1       93,847  52,781  41,066
ena-week2       69,297  30,328  38,969
ena-week3       75,853  31,995  43,858
ena-week4       92,680  37,511  55,169
                409,622 189,074 220,548 

http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org

--
David Jones

Reply via email to