At 05:21 PM Thursday, 4/3/2008, Matt Kettler wrote -=>
Ed Kasky wrote:
At 01:29 PM Thursday, 4/3/2008, John Hardin wrote -=>
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Ed Kasky wrote:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.3 required=6.9 tests=BAYES_99,HTML_MESSAGE,
RDNS_DYNAMIC,SARE_OBFU_MILLIONS autolearn=no version=3.2.4
How did it hit SARE_OBFU_MILLIONS with a blank body?
I wish I had an answer for that one the same as why it didn't hit
BLANK_LINES_80_90...
Odds are the message isn't blank.. Have you got a copy of the raw
message before Eudora gets a hold of it?
I should have looked at the raw message. Even in pine, it shows
blank until you display the full headers:
http://www.wrenkasky.com/spam/resipiscence.txt
Quite a difference...
"Thanks in advance on this one. These things have been plaguing me
for some time and no matter how many I run through sa-learn, they
never seem to score above a 5... "
"X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.3 required=6.9 tests=BAYES_99,HTML_MESSAGE, "
Well, clearly that one scored above a 5. And with BAYES_99 already
in the mix, more sa-learn training won't raise the score. This
message already matches the highest bayes classification possible.
Perhaps you need to reconsider your threshold. If false negatives
are a big problem for you, raising it above 5.0 isn't a good idea.
When you raise the threshold, you're trading off fewer FPs, for more
FNs. This particular message clearly exemplifies that.
Not a big problem with FN's per se, just of this type that seem to
have a blank body in Eudora and when I check them in pine without the
headers, they still appeared to be blank. I will start checking the
raw message more carefully. Thanks.
Ed
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Randomly Generated Quote (1051 of 1388):
Strike an average between what a woman thinks of her husband a
month before she marries him and what she thinks of him a
year afterward, and you will have the truth about him.
-H.L. Mencken, writer, editor, and critic (1880-1956)
