On 22.07.15 10:09, Reindl Harald wrote:
i doubt that you really want that and even if for sure not for
BAYES_99 but BAYES_999, it makes no sense - bayes alone is not the
only decision in a scoring system, it's one component
that said from someone scoring BAYES_999 with 7.9 while milter-reject
is 8.0 - the other rules are there to avoid false-positives and
false-negatives for a good reason
Am 22.07.2015 um 13:40 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
So THIS explains, why you blame (us) for every single low-scoring rule for
hitting something you don't like!
On 22.07.15 14:01, Reindl Harald wrote:
completly untrue, if something hits BAYES_999 i expect it to get
rejected by a corpus of currently 35000 spam samples, 25000 ham
samples and a total of 2.5 Mio tokens
handtrained, while a default autolearning/autoexpire setup purges
anything above 150000 tokens so that you are running in circles if
already trained junk comes back after two months which happens
regulary
a FP is a FP and in doubt questionable, always
I'm talking about a few cases you were complaining about low scoring rules,
for example DCC (don't remember others).
no idea why on this list any qestions are "blaming"
because of the way how you have asked about them ;-)
however, for the OP it is another reason not even to score high on BAYES_*
for the OP the shortcircuit is questionable because with low scoring
BAYES_* and skip all other rules because shortcircuit he won't get
useful results
the shortcircuiting on BAYES_00 and BAYES_99(9) is questionable no matter
what score those rules have...
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
I'm not interested in your website anymore.
If you need cookies, bake them yourself.
