On Sonntag, 30. April 2006 18:40 Matt Kettler wrote: > However, mails matching BAYES_95 are more likely to be "trickier", > and are likely to match fewer other rules. These messages are more > likely to require an extra boost from BAYES_95's score than those > which match BAYES_99.
Like Jane wrote, I don't believe writing rules to "just" reach over 5.0 for SPAM is what should be the goal. For the german ruleset I maintain, I always try to push SPAM far beyond any mark, without risking FPs. If there's some sexual excplicit sentence that's really only possible to be SPAM, I'll give it up to 4 points. Most porn SPAM gets around 20-30 points now. That's good, so I'm on the safe side of text variations hitting less rules. I hope to have some good stats tool soon to be able to see graphically if BAYES_99 is secure. What I see from looking at e-mails whenever I check, it's very sure SPAM being worth 4-5 points. That might be because my main language is german, and most SPAM is english, though. Jane made a good statement about writing rules to make a peak around 5.0, to clearly indicate SPAM or HAM. Sounds reasonable, but I didn't test it, because I don't happen to have any FPs. mfg zmi -- // Michael Monnerie, Ing.BSc ----- http://it-management.at // Tel: 0660/4156531 .network.your.ideas. // PGP Key: "lynx -source http://zmi.at/zmi3.asc | gpg --import" // Fingerprint: 44A3 C1EC B71E C71A B4C2 9AA6 C818 847C 55CB A4EE // Keyserver: www.keyserver.net Key-ID: 0x55CBA4EE
pgpwQEmOnfljO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
