On Sun, 2009-08-09 at 11:33 +0100, Cedric Knight wrote:
> I'm using Bayes and network tests, and have found a few rules with a
> good ratio of ham to spam, but that score only 0.001 in the default rules.
>
> In some cases, it is presumably because they overlap with other rules or
> are detected by remote tests, and so would score double because a
> particular feature in the email. But in other cases, I wonder if
> they've been pegged at that low value for some other reason and are
> actually pretty useful and could go up to 1.0 or so?
Keep in mind that the scores have been set during the last mass-check
run, which was quite a while ago. Consequently, they do reflect a
(historic) snapshot of the mass corpora (available).
Spam patterns change. Much faster than ham patterns...
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
