Greg Troxel wrote on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:51:57 -0500: > In https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5902 I asked
I read that bug report now and followed the link to the ruleqa. I have a slightly different twist on that: should rules with such a low hit rate (whatever they hit) have such high scores? I mean, just a few hits on the "other side" will "out-balance" such a rule quickly. Should such a rule be allowed to have such a great influence? It appears to me that the HABEAS rules are hitting only a very tiny fraction of mail, many of the nightly mass-checks don't have a hit at all (or is it that those checks don't contain any network checks?). The aggregated view shows no hits at all for these rules. I'm not sure if I'm reading the ruleqa correctly, although I read it's help. 1. I'm wondering why many rules show a score of 0.0 2. do I understand it correctly that a nightly check contains only the spam received over the last 24 hours? 3. I don't see any explanation for s/o and rank. (Rank seems to be some sort of ranking according to the hit rate, but I find it hardly understandable that a rule that hits a lot of messages, like URIBL_SURBL, scores 1.0 as rank and a rule that hits almost no messages still scores at half of that. s/o seems to show the ham/spam ratio cleanliness?) There's also something wrong with the ruleqa.cgi. When I click a rule to get the explanation I get a software error at the bottom, for instance: http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20090103-r730938-n/HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI/detail Kai -- Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
