On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, David Jones wrote:
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?
We have at times in the past. When you're performing analyses like this
you need to bear in mind the size of the ham corpus.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Failure to plan ahead on someone else's part does not constitute
an emergency on my part. -- David W. Barts in a.s.r
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 days until Daylight Saving Time begins in U.S. - Spring Forward
