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

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

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

Reply via email to