Even with that, RW, he can't have been running long enough to give that number.
He needs a decent sample of failures before his number is better a figure at
least ten times the figure he gave.
And NO system with that many mails fails to make false positives unless one is
arrogant enough to declare, "What I call spam is by definition spam regardless
of customer complaints." One person's spam is another person's ham. That's why
Loren and I tune our own anti-spam operations to our particular tastes. (Grin,
big boobies do nothing for me, for example. I'd have to wear them and that
would be awesomely uncomfortable. {^_-})
Even gmail mismarks spam on outgoing email. I want to send zip files of test
builds for a program I am maintaining for a customer. Gmail makes me run through
stupid renaming tricks which I could automate in the spam engine if I wished to
send .zip spam. And so far all ISPs I've encountered "mismark spam" by default.
I want to filter and markup my own spam with the spam score in the early part
of the marked up title. Then it is easy to search for mismarked ham email. That
way I don't have to use use-resistant web mail tools and read all the heaeders
to guess which "spams" were really ham.
Noel-boy has not thought through his problem. (And it dawned on me there IS a
way to avoid all false positives. Mark all spam as ham.)
{^_-}
On 2011/11/27 12:04, RW wrote:
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 19:31:22 +0000
Martin Gregorie wrote:
I also notice, because I tried it to see what happens, that you can
submit a score line for a rule with a __ name prefix without an error
being reported. Is that line silently thrown away?
I don't know. You could try it, but since it's a perverse thing to
do, and not documented, I would regard it as undefined behaviour.
If you actually want give a score to a hidden rule (to see whether
it's being hit), I would do it this way:
meta BAR __FOO
score BAR 0.001
