Duncan Findlay writes: > On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 06:07:01PM +0100, Justin Mason wrote: > > > Theo Van Dinter writes: > > in other words, reducing the worst-case scenario to just under 1 day. (If > > we were to increase frequency of update publishing in the future, that > > would then reduce that further, if necessary.) > > > Rules that got promoted based on "being new" and having a 1.0 S/O in the > > preflight mass-checks would then only *stay* promoted if they then passed > > the normal, existing promotion criteria -- so a rule that was good > > "enough" to get into the update due to a 1.0 S/O, but had FPs on the > > larger test set, would fall out anyway after 1 day. > > I think I'd want to see a spam% restriction on there > too.
Sure. > Unfortunately, this probably wont help, since (correct me if I'm > wrong) the preflight mass-checks are old messages, not brand new ones, > right? This would mean they wouldn't get a good S/O ratio anyways. Actually, at least for one of the preflight corpora (mine), they're uploaded nightly, so a max of 24 hours old. ;) --j.
